STACK 
ANNEX 


5 

0  JJ 

855 


What  Shall  We  Sav 


o 
o 

0 

0 
8 
6 

2 
6 
3 


Being  comments   on   current  matters   of 

WAR  and   WASTE 


By 

DAVID   STARR   JORDAN 


California 
Regional 
'acility 


WORLD  PEACE  FOUNDATION 

Boston,  Massachusetts,  U.  S.  A. 

1913 


What  Shall  We  Say? 

Being  comments   on   current  matters   of 

WAR  and   WASTE 


By 

DAVID   STARR   JORDAN 


"Bloody  the  hue  Ciatalgia's  bivouacs  lend 
Unto  the  waning  star  of  Bethlehem." 

— M.  B.  Anderson 


WORLD   PEACE   FOUNDATION 

Boston,  Massachusetts,  U.  S.  A. 

1913 


Copyright,  1913, 

by 
DAVID  STARR  JORDAN 


STANFORII    UNIVERSITY    PRESS 


To  the  memory  of 

Sir  Cbarles  3Ba0ot 

and  of 

TRicbarfc  IRusb 

patriots  of  a  hundred  years  ago,  who  excluded  warships 
from  the  Great  Lakes  of  America  and  thus  secured  what 
no  warrior  could — lasting  peace  between  two  great 
nations.  Where  there  are  no  soldiers  there  is  no  war. 


1703780 


PREFATORY  NOTE 

These  little  essays  were  originally  written  and  sent  out  as 
personal  comments  or  "editorials"  to  friends  interested  in  the  fight 
against  war  and  war  accessories. 

Two  of  these  —  numbers  I  and  6  —  were  originally  published 
in  the  Atlantic  Monthly,  number  21  in  the  Independent,  and 
parts  of  numbers  24  and  28  in  the  World's  Work.  Others  have 
been  copied  in  various  journals  at  home  and  abroad. 

Stanford  University,  California, 
January  19,   1913. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

1.  Peace  and  the  Balkans     .......  9 

2.  Shall  the  Turk  Go?     .                  .  n 

3.  Why    Turkey    Fails 13 

4.  The  Fate  of  Armenia           .         .         .         .         .         .  15 

5.  The  Great  War  of  Europe       .         .         .         .         .         .18 

6.  "Our  Ships"  and  Our  Money     .....  22 

7.  The  Open  Door  at  Panama     ......  24 

8.  Which  Ship  Goes  First 25 

9.  Twenty-five  Thousand  at   Panama  .         .         .         .26 

10.  The  Canal  and  its  Enemies         .....  28 

1 1 .  The  Size  of  the  Navy     .......  30 

12.  The  Monroe  Doctrine           ......  32 

13-.  Military   Conscription       .......  35 

14.  The  Abolition  of  Piracy       .                  ....  38 

15.  Entangling    Alliances 40 

1 6.  The  Pest  of  Glory 42 

17.  The  Force  of  Arms 45 

1.8.  The  Fighting  Edge 47 

19.  The  Net  of  the  Usurer     .         .         .  .         .         .50 

20.  The  Fertile  Dreadnaught     .         .         .         .  *  *   .         .  52 

21.  The  Dream  of  Invasion             54 

22.  The  Defense  of  the  Pacific             .....  57 

23.  Pearl    Harbor 61 

24.  Magdalena    Bay 64 

25.  The  Samoan  Precedent 68 

26.  Japanese    Immigration 69 

27.  The  Old- Age  Pension 71 

28.  Taxing  the  Cost  of  Living 74 

29.  Fort    Graft            ....  79 
30.  The  Xavy  and  Statesmanship           .  80 


I. 
Peace  and  the  Balkans 

What  shall  we  say,  as  lovers  of  peace,  in  face  of  the  Balkan 
war  ?  Is  it  true  that  while  Serbs  are  Serbs  and  Greeks  are  Greeks, 
and  Turks  are  Turks,  there  is  no  way  out  save  war?  Is  it  not 
true  that  while  Turks  rule  aliens  for  the  money  to  be  extorted, 
there  can  be  no  peace  between  them  and  their  subjects  or  their 
neighbors  ? 

It  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  answer  these  questions.  They 
belong  to  history  rather  than  to  morals.  The  progress  of  events 
will  take  our  answer  from  our  lips.  The  problem  comes  to  us 
too  late  for  any  act  of  ours  to  be  effective.  The  stage  was  set, 
the  actors  chosen,  thirty- four  years  ago,  at  Berlin  in  1878.  Our 
part  is  to  strive  for  peace — first,  to  do  away  with  causes  for  war ; 
second,  to  lead  people  to  look  for  war  as  the  last  and  not  the  first 
remedy  for  national  wrongs  or  national  disagreements.  Most 
wars  have  their  origin  in  the  evil  passions  of  men,  and  no  war 
could  take  place  if  both  sides  were  sincerely  desirous  of  honor- 
able peace. 

No  doubt,  the  Balkan  situation  could  have  been  controlled  for 
peace  by  the  "concert  of  powers"  in  Europe,  were  it  not  that  no 
such  concert  exists.  The  instruments  are  out  of  tune  and  time. 
So  long  as  foreign  offices  are  alike  controlled  by  the  interests  of 
great  exploiting  and  competing  corporations,  they  can  never 
stand  for  good  morals  and  good  order.  If  they  could,  the  Turkish 
rule  of  violence  would  have  ceased  long  ago. 

Those  who  fight  against  war  cannot  expect  to  do  away  with 
it  in  a  year  or  a  century,  especially  when  it  is  urged  on  by  five 
hundred  years  of  crime  and  discord.  The  roots  of  the  Balkan 
struggle  lie  back  in  the  middle  ages,  and  along  mediaeval  lines 
the  fight  is  likely  to  be  conducted.  "The  right  to  rule,  without 
the  duty  to  protect,"  is  the  bane  of  all  Oriental  imperialism. 
Meanwhile  our  own  task  is  to  help  to  modernize  the  life  of  the 
world;  to  raise,  through  democracy,  the  estimate  of  the  value  of 


IO  WHAT   SHALL   WE   SAY? 

men's  lives ;  to  continue  through  our  day  the  enduring  revolt  of 
civilization  against  "obsolete  forms  of  servitude,  tyranny  and 
waste." 

The  immediate  purpose  of  the  Peace  Movement  is,  through 
public  opinion  and  through  international  law,  to  exalt  order  above 
violence  and  to  take  war  out  of  the  foreground  of  the  "interna- 
tional mind"  in  the  event  of  disputes  between  races  and  nations. 
No  movement  forward  can  succeed  all  at  once.  Evil  habit  and 
false  education  have  left  the  idea  of  war  and  glory  too  deeply 
ingrained.  Men  law-abiding  and  patient,  willing  to  hear  both 
sides,  have  never  yet  been  in  the  majority.  Yet  their  influence 
steadily  grows  in  weight.  The  influence  of  science  and  arts,  of 
international  fellowship,  of  common  business  interests — small 
business  as  well  as  great — are  leading  the  people  of  the  world 
to  better  and  better  understanding.  Left  alone,  civilized  peoples 
would  never  make  war.  They  have  no  outside  grievances  they 
wish  to  submit  to  the  arbitrament  of  wholesale  murder.  To  make 
them  prepare  for  war  they  must  be  scared,  not  led.  No  soldier, 
we  are  told  by  experts,  not  even  the  fiercest  Cossack,  wants  to 
fight,  after  he  has  once  tried  it.  Those  who  make  war  never  go 
to  the  front.  Were  it  not  for  the  -exaggeration  by  interested 
parties  of  trade  jealousies  and  diplomatic  intrigues,  few  peoples 
would  ever  think  of  going  to  war.  The  workingmen  of  Europe 
suffer  from  tax-exhaustion.  The  fear  of  war  is  kept  before  them 
to  divert  them  from  their  own  sad  plight.  This  diversion  leaves 
their  plight  still  the  sadder. 

The  bread-riot,  in  all  its  phases,  is  the  sign  of  over-taxation, 
of  governmental  disregard  of  the  lives  and  earnings  of  the  com- 
mon man.  Anarchism  is  the  expression  the  idle  and  reckless  give 
to  the  feelings  of  those  who  are  still  law  abiding. 

The  Peace  Movement  must  stand  against  oppression  and 
waste.  It  must  do  its  part  in  removing  grievances,  national  and 
international.  It  must  give  its  council  in  favor  of  peace  and  order, 
and  it  must  help  to  educate  men  to  believe  that  the  nation  which 
guarantees  to  its  young  men  personal  justice  and  personal  oppor- 
tunity has  a  greater  glory  than  that  which  sends  forth  its  youth 
to  slaughter. 


II. 
Shall  the  Turk  Go? 

What  shall  we  say  of  the  expulsion  of  the  Turk  from  Europe  ? 
Most  of  us  say  let  him  go,  and  he  seems  to  be  going.  But  we 
would  not  have  him  driven  out  because  he  is  a  Turk  nor  because 
he  is  a  Moslem.  Those  are  not  good  reasons.  Difference  in  race 
or  in  religion  is  no  valid  cause  for  war.  Nor  is  it  really  the  habit 
of  massacre  to  which  the  Turk  seems  addicted  and  by  which  he 
has  stained  the  soil  of  Armenia  and  Syria  as  well  as  that  of  Mace- 
donia, Bulgaria  and  Greece.  The  Turk  has  a  long  list  of  mas- 
sacres because  he  has  had  a  long  lease  of  opportunity.  The  fault 
is  not  with  the  Turk  but  with  the  system.  He  has  held  alien 
lands  in  military  servitude  for  500  years.  Others  have  done  as 
he  does  when  the  opportunity  or  the  necessity  was  forced  upon 
them.  Military  pacification  and  military  control  over  people  who 
do  not  manage  their  own  affairs  spells  always  massacre.  Mas- 
sacre is  war,  the  very  worst  side  of  war.  It  is  war  unrelieved  by 
any  lofty  purpose.  But  more  blood  has  been  shed  in  the  Balkans 
in  a  month  than  the  Turks  have  shed  in  a  century  before.  Yet 
there  is  a  difference.  There  is  real  force  in  the  Macedonian 
proverb  "Better  an  end  with  horror,  than  horror  without  end." 
There  is  a  Mexican  proverb  "The  grass  grows  over  the  graves 
of  those  who  fall  in  battle,  but  not  over  those  slain  by  military  or- 
der." The  evil  does  not  lie  with  the  Turk  as  Turk.  Turks  are 
much  like  other  people.  Like  other  good  soldiers,  those  who  have 
tried  it  have  no  love  for  war.  They  would  rather  not  kill  nor 
be  killed.  But  military  occupation  is  irksome.  A  soldier 
insults  a  woman.  This  has  been  a  soldier's  privilege  in  most 
countries  through  the  insolent  ages.  An  insult  is  resented. 
An  alien  insults  a  soldier.  A  trader  refuses  to  pay  his  taxes.  A 
civilian  complains  of  ill  treatment.  A  boy  shoots  a  soldier  from 
behind  a  cactus  hedge.  The  soldier  seeks  revenge.  His  com- 
rades stand  behind  him.  Whatever  the  provocation,  "shooting 
up  the  town"  is  no  novelty  in  history.  Insolence  begets  resistance. 


12  WHAT    SHALL    WE    SAY? 

Resistance  to  the  soldier  is  "treachery."  The  penalty  of  treach- 
ery is  "massacre."  This  story  has  been  told  over  and  over  again 
wherever  there  is  military  pacification  and  military  occupation. 
It  has  been  told  in  our  day  in  Armenia  and  Adana  and  Mace- 
donia. It  has  been  told  in  the  Oasis  of  Tripoli,  in  the  Transvaal, 
in  Samar,  in  Peking,  in  Bessarabia,  in  Korea,  in  Finland,  in 
Zululand,  in  the  Soudan,  in  the  Congo,  in  Yucatan,  in  India,  in 
Indo-China,  in  Arabia,  in  Egypt.  It  is  not  the  soldier's  duty  to 
stand  patiently  under  abuse.  It  is  not  his  part  to  respect  the 
rights  of  men.  It  is  not  the  civilian's  part  to  take  in  meekness  the 
soldier's  insults.  And  it  is  not  the  expulsion  of  the  Turk  that 
we  hope  for.  The  Turk  is  the  least  of  our  problems.  We  would 
put  an  end  to  the  whole  system  which  involves  "the  right  to  rule 
without  the  duty  to  protect."  And  in  the  long  run,  there  is  no 
protection  for  any  people  who  have  not  some  voice  in  their  own 
affairs.  Sooner  or  later  comes  the  end  to  all  imperial  domina- 
tion that  strikes  no  deeper  roots  than  force  or  fear. 


III. 
Why  Turkey  Fails 

What  shall  we  say  of  the  failure  of  Turkey  in  the  test  of  war  ? 
We  are  told  by  a  leading  military  expert  that  "Turkey  is  being 
defeated  because  of  her  lack  of  preparation  for  war."  Others 
have  said  that  it  was  because  her  armies  have  been  under  German 
drill  and  armed  with  German  guns,  her  adversaries  being  equipped 
in  France.  Others  say  that  her  armies  contain  too  many 
Christians,  who  will  not  shoot  nor  fight  their  friends.  Others, 
with  a  similar  thought,  say  that  she  "has  misgoverned  Macedonia 
and  Albania,  and  these  in  the  crisis  become  inevitably  and  properly 
her  enemies  and  not  her  friends,  a  source  of  weakness  and  doom 
instead  of  defense  and  strength." 

May  it  not  be  that  Turkey's  failure  in  war  is  because  of  too 
much  preparation,  because  she  has  prepared  for  nothing  else? 

Nothing  else  grows  under  military  occupation.  Turkey's  old 
war  debt  of  $509,000,000  is  crushing  to  all  her  industries,  pro- 
hibitive to  all  her  hopes.  As  "the  sick  man  of  Europe"  Turkey 
has  been  kept  alive  only  by  the  persistence  of  his  creditors. 
"Instead  of  being  extinguished  in  the  struggle  for  political 
existence  because  too  weak  to  pay  his  debts,  he  had  to  be  kept 
artificially  alive  in  order  to  pay  them." 

The  reputation  of  the  Turk  as  a  fighter  comes  down  from  the 
days  when  he  was  a  wild  frontiersman.  For  centuries  he  has 
been  kept  in  garrison-towns,  the  worst  possible  school  for  physical 
vigor,  giving  a  lassitude  which  even  the  drill  of  a  German  Field 
Marshal  could  not  overcome.  Perhaps  this  is  not  the  true  ex- 
planation, but  it  is  as  likely  as  the  others.  The  Turkish  army,  it 
appears,  was  short  of  arms  and  powder  and  rations.  But  the 
soldiers  may  have  had  all  there  was.  Too  long  prepared  for 
war,  the  provisions  for  it  had  long  since  given  out,  and  there 
was  no  money  to  get  any  more. 

Chesterton  tells  us  of  approaching  a  distant  shore,  covered 
with  dark  forest.  As  he  came  nearer  he  saw  that  this  forest  had 


14  WHAT   SHALL    WE   SAY? 

no  "roots  in  the  ground.  It  was  made  up  wholly  of  hovering 
vultures.  It  was  Turkey. 

Professor  Sumner  of  Yale  once  said:  "There  is  no  state  of 
readiness  for  war.  The  notion  calls  for  never-ending  sacrifice. 
...  It  would  absorb  all  the  resources  and  activity  of  the  state. 
This  the  great  European  states  are  now  proving  by  experiment. 
.  .  .  What  we  prepare  for  is  what  we  get." 

For  hundreds  of  years  Turkey  has  been  preparing  for  war. 
She  has  always  had  on  "the  fighting  edge."  The  "fighting  edge" 
grows  rusty.  The  standing  army  grows  stale.  But  successful 
war  depends  on  other  resources.  Other  resources  Turkey  has 
not  got, — can  never  get,  because  war  is  her  business.  Her 
people  have  not  taken  root, — not  in  Europe,  not  in  Asia.  They 
live  in  barracks,  in  encampments,  not  in  a  "continuing  city." 


IV. 
The  Fate  of  Armenia 

What  shall  we  say  of  Armenia  in  this  crisis  of  the  Balkans? 
Is  Turkey  in  Asia  to  be  left  to  its  fate  with  the  redemption  of 
Turkey  in  Europe?  Is  the  military  Turk  a  different  man  on  the 
other  side  of  the  Dardanelles  ? 

There  is  no  difference.  Only  this :  the  shrieks  of  victims  grow 
fainter  as  the  square  of  the  distance  increases.  The  military 
Turk  is  at  home  nowhere;  and  his  rule  is  just  as  intolerable  in 
Armenia,  in  Syria,  in  Adana,  in  Arabia  even,  as  it  is  in  Mace- 
donia and  Crete.  It  is  not  the  Turk  as  Turk  who  is  primarily 
at  fault.  The  Turk  as  trader,  farmer,  artisan  is  likely  to  be  a 
good  man,  a  good  citizen,  according  to  his  lights.  The  fault  lies 
with  the  system.  Irresponsible  military  occupation  is  the  same 
the  world  over.  That  of  the  Turk  has  been  longer  continued  than 
most  others.  It  is  so  much  the  worse  for  that.  Anything  else  is 
to  be  preferred,  even  the  control  of  Russia.  "There  are  degrees, 
even  in  hell,"  so  an  Armenian  patriot  writes  me.  And  the  people 
of  Armenia  look  hopefully  forward  to  a  Russian  invasion  as  a 
relief  from  the  evils  they  suffer  now.  The  process  justly  known 
as  "the  Strangling  of  Persia"  is  to  Armenia  a  prayed-for  relief. 
The  strangling  of  a  nationality,  though  brutal  to  the  utmost, 
pinches  less  than  the  outrage  of  one's  family  and  kindred. 

But  no  rule  of  force  unrelieved  can  be  enduring.  The  right 
to  govern  must  accept  the  duty  of  co-operative  protection.  The 
"wide-flung  battle  lines"  of  the  world  can  hold  nothing  worth 
keeping  if  there  grow  up  no  other  ties  as  bonds  of  empire.  The 
best  army  in  the  world  becomes  an  instrument  of  tyranny  if  it 
cannot  touch  the  hearts  of  the  people.  Kipling's  "thin  red  line  of 
heroes"  and  Thackeray's  "red-coat  bully  in  his  boots"  differ 
mainly  in  the  point  of  view. 

There  is  no  end  to  the  Balkan  crisis  which  does  not  include 
Armenia.  The  troubles  cannot  pass  until  tyranny  passes.  The 
minor  questions  of  politics,  Servia's  needs,  Austria's  ambitions, 


1 6  WHAT    SHALL    WE    SAY? 

Roumania's  deals,  are  of  no  consequence  in  comparison.  The 
exploiters  behind  the  foreign  offices  may  quarrel  over  the  spoils. 
They  can  arrange  the  map  as  they  please.  The  essential  thing  is 
the  redemption  of  the  peoples. 

What  the  Armenian  wants  is  to  be  allowed  to  live  as  people 
live  in  other  countries,  "immunity  from  slaughter,  plunder,  tor- 
ture and  outrage  on  the  soil  of  his  own  fatherland." 

I  give  below  a  condensation  of  twelve  demands  from  an 
Armenian  appeal  to  the  world  (the  work  of  Diana  Agabeg 
Apcar). 

(1)  The  Armenians  should  be  allowed  the   right  to  bear  arms  and 
to  establish  a  local  militia  in  all  the  Armenian  villages  for  self-protection 
against  the   raids  of  Kurd,  Circassian,  Turk  and  other  Moslem  robbers 
who  are  allowed  the  possession  of  arms  and  ammunition. 

(2)  The  Armenians  should  be  allowed  the  right  to  bear  arms  and  to 
establish  Armenian  volunteer  corps  or  local  militia  for  protection  against 
Moslem  destruction  of  their  homes,  churches,  schools,  shops  and  industries. 

(3)  The  Armenians  should  be  allowed  the  right  to  bear  arms  in  order 
to  defend  their  own  bodies  and  the  bodies  of  their  women  and  children 
from  Moslem  murder  and  outrage. 

(4)  The  lands  of  the  Armenians,  filched  from  them  by  the  Turkish 
authorities  and  made  over  to  Moslems,  should  be  restored. 

(5)  A    judicial    committee    of    twelve    members,    composed    of    six 
Armenians  elected  by  the  Armenian  National  Assembly  and  six  Moslems 
deputed  by  the  Government,  should  be  appointed  for  the  examination  of 
title  deeds  of  lands  and  for  the  restoration  to  the  rightful  owners  of  their 
lands.     In  the  event  of  disagreement  over  the  disputed  properties  between 
the  Armenian  and  Moslem  members  of  the  judicial  committee,  the  case 
should    not    be    referred    to    any    Turkish    Court,    but    submitted    to    the 
arbitration    of    two    foreign    Consuls,    the    Armenians    choosing    one    for 
themselves  and  the  Moslems  another. 

(6)  That  Moslem  officials  should  not  be  employed  to  collect  taxes  in 
Armenian  villages,  but  the  taxes  in  all  the  Armenian  villages  should  be 
collected  by  Armenian  tax-gatherers  appointed  by  the  Armenian  National 
Assembly. 

(7)  That  the  Armenians   should  be  allowed  to  establish  their  own 
courts  of  justice  for  the  purpose  of  administering  justice  and  conducting 
litigation  between  Armenian  and  Armenian,  and  for  deciding  all  questions 
relating   to    marriage,    divorce,    estate,    inheritance,    etc.,    appertaining    to 
themselves. 

(8)  That  the  Armenians  should  be  allowed  the  right  to  establish  their 
own  prisons  for  the  incarceration  of  offending  Armenians,  and  in  no  case 
should  an  Armenian  be  imprisoned  in  a  Turkish  prison. 


THE   FATE   OF   ARMENIA  I/ 

(9)  That    irrespective    of    the    office    of    the    Turkish    Governor,    an 
Armenian  Governor  elected  by  the  Armenian  National  Assembly  shall  be 
appointed  in  every  province  of  Lesser  and  Greater  Armenia  for  the  pro- 
tection of  the  Armenians. 

(10)  That  the  Armenian  Governor  shall  be  assisted  by  an  Armenian 
legislative  council  composed  of  six  Armenians  elected  by  the  Armenian 
National  Assembly. 

(u)  That  the  Armenians  should  be  allowed  the  right  of  sending  their 
own  delegate  to  the  Hague  Conferences. 

(12)  That  no  reforms  in  Armenia  should  be  left  to  the  promises,  the 
control  or  administration  of  the  Turkish  Government.  (All  Turkish 
reforms  are  the  prelude  to  Turkish  massacre.) 


V. 
The  Great  War  of  Europe 

What  shall  we  say  of  the  Great  War  of  Europe,  ever  threaten- 
ing, ever  impending,  and  which  never  comes?  We  shall  say  that 
it  will  never  come.  Humanly  speaking,  it  is  impossible. 

Not  in  the  physical  sense,  of  course,  for  with  weak,  reckless 
and  godless  men  nothing  evil  is  impossible.  It  may  be,  of  course, 
that  some  half-crazed  archduke  or  some  harassed  minister  of 
state,  shall  half-unknowing  give  the  signal  for  Europe's  conflagra- 
tion. In  fact,  the  agreed  signal  has  been  given  more  than  once 
within  the  last  few  months.  The  tinder  is  well  dried  and  laid  in 
such  a  way  as  to  make  the  worst  of  this  catastrophe.  All  Europe 
cherishes  is  ready  for  the  burning.  Yet  Europe  recoils  and  will 
recoil,  even  in  the  dread  stress  of  spoil-division  of  the  Balkan 
Wai. 

Behind  the  sturdy  forms  of  the  Bulgarian  farmers  lurks  the 
sinister  figure  of  Russian  intrigue.  Russia  and  Austria,  careless 
of  their  neighbors,  careless  of  obligations,  find  in  this  their  op- 
portunity. And  the  nations  of  Europe  in  their  degree  are  bound 
to  one  or  the  other  of  these  malcontents.  Neither  Russia  nor 
Austria  can  be  trusted  to  keep  the  peace  even  in  her  own  interest, 
for  both,  through  debt  abroad  and  discontent  at  home,  are  in  a 
condition  of  perpetual  crisis. 

The  financial  exploiters  of  Europe  which  control  the  "Great 
Powers"  are  very  active  behind  the  scenes.  The  huge  debt  of 
Turkey  is  mainly  held  in  France.  French  financiers  arm  the  Bal- 
kan troops  and  pay  their  expenses.  French  concessionaires  strive 
with  English,  German,  Austrian  for  everything  worth  holding  in 
Turkey.  The  "sick  man  of  Europe,"  owes  his  continued  exist- 
ence as  well  as  his  final  demise  to  these  industrious  parasites. 

But  accident  aside,  the  Triple  Entente  lined  up  against  the 
Triple  Alliance,  we  shall  expect  no  war.  Some  glimpses  of  the 
reasons  why  appear  daily  in  the  press.  We  read  that  German  and 
that  Austrian  banks  try  in  vain  to  secure  short  loans  in  New  York, 


THE   GREAT    WAR   OF   EUROPE  1$ 

even  at  eight  per  cent.  We  learn  that  great  bankers  refuse  ab- 
solutely to  loan  on  any  terms  for  war.  We  learn  that  on  the  day 
of  Montenegro's  declaration  of  war,  the  nominal  value  of  stocks 
and  bonds  in  Europe  fell  to  the  extent  of  nearly  $7,000,000,000. 
The  loss  of  France  alone,  the  creditor  of  Europe,  is  given  at  $800,- 
000,000.  The  decline  in  England  in  three  years  is  set  down  at 
$9,250,000. 

At  the  same  time  the  house  of  Krupp,  the  greatest  builders 
of  war  tools,  reports  a  surplus  for  the  year  of  $12,500,000.  A 
twelve  per  cent  dividend  was  declared,  besides  the  setting  apart 
of  $4,000,000,  for  welfare  work  and  capital  reserves.  The  arma- 
ment builders  of  France  can  doubtless  show  a  like  profit,  but  the 
details  are  not  yet  public. 

The  gains  of  war  and  war  talk  go  to  the  vultures.  The  cost 
falls  on  the  people.  Whatever  else  happens,  the  common  man 
stands,  to  lose  in  war. 

The  expenses  of  the  proposed  general  war  are  thus  tabulated 
by  Professor  Charles  Richet  of  the  University  of  Paris : 

Austria  2,600,000  men 

England    1,500,000 

France  3,400,000 

Germany  3,600,000 

Italy 2,800,000 

Roumania  300,000 

Russia  7,000,000 


21,200,000 

If  these  nations — supposed  to  be  diplomatically  concerned  in 
the  question  of  whether  the  obscure  Albanian  port  of  Durazzo 
should  fall  to  Servia  or  to  Austria,  neither  of  the  two  having  the 
slightest  claim  to  it — should  rush  into  the  fight,  the  expense 
would  run  at  $50,000,000  per  day,  a  sum  to  be  greatly  increased 
with  the  sure  rise  of  prices. 

The  table  of  Richet  (here  translated  from  francs  to  dollars) 
deserves  most  careful  attention. 


2O  WHAT   SHALL   WE   SAY? 

Daily  cost  of  a  great  European  War. 

1.  Feed  of  men $12,600,000 

2.  Feed  of  horses 1,000,000 

3.  Pay    (European   rates) 4,250,000 

4.  Pay  of  workmen    in    arsenals    and 

ports   (100  per  day) 1,000,000 

5.  Transportation  (60  miles  10  days)..  2,100,000 

6.  Transportation  of  provisions 4,200,000 

7.  Munitions :  Infantry  10  cartridges  a 

day 4,200,000 

8.  Artillery:   10  shots  per  day 1,200,000 

9.  Marine:  2  shots  per  day 400,000 

10.  Equipment   4,200,000 

11.  Ambulances:  500,000  wounded  or  ill 

($i  per  day) 500,000 

12.  Cuirasses    500,000 

13.  Reduction   of   imports 5,000,000 

14.  Help  to  the  poor  (20  cents  per  day 

to  i  in  10) 6,800,000 

15.  Destruction  of  towns,  etc 2,000,000 


Total  per  day $49,950,000 

To  all  this  we  may  add  the  horrors  of  the  air,  the  cost  of 
aeroplanes  and  of  burning  cities  which  this  monstrous  abom- 
ination of  murder  may  render  inhumanly  possible.  The  nation 
which  uses  instruments  like  these  against  a  sister  nation  can 
boast  no  advance  over  the  Red  Indian  and  his  scalping  knife. 

In  this  connection  we  must  remember  that  Europe  still  owes 
$27,000,000,000  for  old  war  debts,  that  her  present  nominal  capital 
that  in  all  her  banks  and  vaults  there  exists  but  seven  or  eight 
billion  dollars  of  actual  coin  or  bullion,  a  third  of  this  locked  up 
or  tied  up  in  vaults  from  which  it  cannot  escape.  The  total  of  coin 
money  and  bullion  in  circulation  in  the  whole  world  is  not  far 
from  $11,000,000,000. 

The  growth  of  credit  in  the  last  forty  years  has  been  without 
conceivable  precedent.  The  movable  credit  of  Europe  in  1871 
did  not  exceed  $40,000,000,000. 

The  masters  of  credit  are  staggered  at  the  hazards  of  present 
day  war.  Wars  of  a  certain  class  may  be  tolerated,  others  may  be 
connived  at  in  the  interest  of  local  exploitation,  but  the  great  wars 


THE    GREAT    WAR    OF    EUROPE  21 

ending  perhaps — whoever  is  victorious — in  the  total  destruction  of 
European  credit,  present  appalling  risks  unknown  to  any  earlier 
generation.  The  people  are  slowly  reaching  the  conclusion  that 
no  nation  or  group  of  nations  has  the  right  to  place  the  world  in 
such  danger. 

The  bankers  will  not  find  the  money  for  such  a  fight,  the  in- 
dustries of  Europe  will  not  maintain  it,  the  statesmen  cannot.  So 
whatever  the  bluster  or  apparent  provocation,  it  comes  to  the  same 
thing  at  the  end.  There  will  be  no  general  war  until  the  masters 
direct  the  fighters  to  fight.  The  masters  have  much  to  gain,  but 
vastly  more  to  lose,  and  their  signal  will  not  be  given. 

It  is  not  alone  the  paralysis  of  debt  which  checks  the  rush  of 
armies.  The  common  man  is  having  a  word  to  say.  While  the 
waning  aristocracies  are  everywhere  for  war,  and  while  the  man 
with  nothing  to  lose — the  man  of  the  galleries  in  the  music  hall — 
repeats  the  echo,  the  good  citizen  sees  the  world  in  a  new  light. 
He  is  not  so  ready  for  a  fool's  errand  to  Durazzo  as  he  was  a  cou- 
ple of  generations  ago  for  a  similar  mission  to  Sebastopol.  The 
cause  of  peace  has  moved  forward  in  these  years,  and  in  the  only 
way  in  which  real  progress  in  civilization  can  be  made — through 
the  enlightenment, of  the  people. 


VI. 
"Our  Ships"  and  Our  Money 

What  shall  we  say  as  to  "free  ships"  and  the  Panama  Canal? 
If  our  Nation  has  agreed  to  treat  all  ships  alike,  including  our 
own,  let  us  stand  by  that  agreement.  Of  violation  of  treaties  we 
have  been  more  than  once  accused.  If  we  know  what  we  have 
promised,  let  us  stand  by  it,  even  though  it  seems  strange  that  we 
cannot  "throw  our  money  to  the  birds"  while  every  other  nation 
is  free  to  do  it. 

But  why  "throw  our  money  to  the  birds"?  Do  "the  birds" 
require  it  or  appreciate  it?  What  claim  have  coastwise  steamships 
of  the  United  States  to  use  our  canal  at  the  expense  of  the  Ameri- 
can people  ?  But  these  are  "our  ships"  we  say.  Since  when  have 
they  become  "our  ships"?  Have  the  New  York  and  London 
capitalists  who  own  them  ever  turned  them  over  to  us?  Have 
they  ever  agreed  to  divide  their  profits  with  those  who  make 
great  profits  possible?  The  great  enemy  of  democracy  is  privi- 
lege. To  grant  a  concession  of  any  sort  having  money  value 
without  a  corresponding  return,  is  "privilege."  The  granting  of 
privilege  in  the  past  is  the  source  of  most  of  the  great  body  of 
political  evils  from  which  the  civilized  world  suffers  to-day. 

While  declaiming  against  privilege,  even  while  exalting  its 
curtailment  as  the  greatest  of  national  issues  to-day,  we  start  new 
privileges  without  hesitation.  We  throw  into  the  hands  of  an 
unknown  group  of  men,  to  become  sooner  or  later  a  shipping  trust, 
a  vast  unknown  and  increasing  sum  of  money  extorted  by  indirect 
taxation  from  the  people  of  this  country.  No  accounting  is  asked 
from  them ;  no  returns  for  our  generosity.  We  give  them  yearly, 
to  begin  with,  as  much  as  an  American  laborer  can  earn  in  4,000 
years ;  in  other  words,  we  place  at  their  service  and  at  our  expense 
4,000  of  our  workingmen.  From  our  tax-roll  we  pass  over  to 
them  the  payments  each  year  of  10,000  families.  And  all  because 
these  are  our  ships.  "Our  ships" — we  have  here  the  primal  fallacy 
of  privilege,  a  fallacy  dominant  the  world  over,  and  which  is  the 


OUR    SHIPS      AND   OUR    MONEY  23 

leading  agent  in  the  impending  insolvency  of  this  spendthrift 
world. 

In  Europe  and  America  taxes  have  doubled  in  the  last  fifteen 
years,  and  half  of  this  extra  tax  has  gone  to  build  up  "our  ships," 
"our  bankers,"  "our  commerce,"  "our  manufactures,"  "our  pro- 
moters," "our  defense"  in  nation  after  nation,  while  the  "man 
lowest  down"  who  bears  the  brunt  of  these  taxes  is  never  called 
on  to  share  its  benefits.  The  ships  that  bear  our  flag  in  order  to 
go  through  our  canal  at  our  expense  are  not  "our  ships."  By 
very  fact  of  free  tolls,  we  know  them  for  the  ships  of  our  enemy, — 
for  the  arch-enemy  of  democracy  is  privilege. 


VII. 
The  Open  Door  at  Panama 

What  shall  we  say  to  the  suggestion  that  tolls  be  free  on  the 
Panama  Canal  for  a  certain  period  of  years  to  the  ships  of  all 
the  world? 

Why  not?  The  cost  would  not  be  burdensome.  We  have 
already  given  away  a  large  part  of  our  expected  receipts.  We 
have  done  this  in  spite  of  our  treaty  agreement  that  we  should 
do  nothing  of  the  kind. 

In  giving  free  passage  to  our  coastwise  ships,  why  not  make 
it  free  to  all  the  world?  It  would  be  a  most  gracious  act,  an  act 
most  characteristic  of  a  great  nation  which  values  generous  action 
above  money.  It  would  show  that  our  occupation  of  the  Canal 
Zone  had  in  part  at  least  the  altruistic  desire  to  help  the  commerce 
of  the  world.  It  would  tend  to  justify  this  occupation.  It  would 
"save  our  face,"  and  save  us  from  facing  the  Hague  Tribunal  to 
answer  for  the  violation  of  a  treaty.  It  would  save  us  from  our 
folly  of  a  special  and  needless  subsidy  to  vessels  engaged  in  our 
coastwise  trade.  It  would  make  easy  and  natural  the  neutraliza- 
tion of  the  Canal  Zone.  It  would  relieve  us  from  the  worry  of 
the  ruthless  militants  who  would  make  the  canal  zone  invulner- 
able on  land  and  unapproachable  by  sea.  It  would  save  us  the 
monstrous  cost  of  the  fortifications  they  have  already  coaxed  us 
or  scared  us  to  begin.  It  would  cost  us  something,  to  be  sure, 
this  world-embracing  generosity.  Let  it  be  so, — we  can  afford  it. 
We  have  already  paid  more  money  for  less  worthy  purposes.  It 
would  restore  our  self-respect  and  the  respect  of  other  nations. 
We  are  losing  both  under  the  statutes  as  they  stand.  Why  not 
declare  the  open  door  at  Panama  and  keep  it  open  at  our  own 
expense  for  half-a-dozen  years  ?•  Experience  may  bring  wisdom ; 
we  can  act  better  later.  Besides,  in  the  fine  words  of  Mr.  Roose- 
velt, ''It  always  pays  for  a  nation  to  be  a  gentleman !" 


VIII. 
What  Ship  Goes  First? 

What  shall  we  say  as  to  the  first  ship  to  pass  through  the 
Panama  Canal?  Let  it  be  an  American  ship,  bound  on  foreign 
commerce.  If  possible,  let  it  be  a  merchant  ship  on  its  peaceful 
way  to  one  of  our  sister  republics. 

The  date  of  the  opening  of  the  Panama  Canal  is  approaching. 
A  certain  symbolism  of  the  thoughts  and  purposes  of  the  people 
of  the  United  States  will  be  associated  with  the  character  of  the 
first  vessel  which  shall  pass  through  the  Panama  Canal.  May 
this  symbolism  be  one  of  international  peace  and  good  will,  and 
of  that  alone. 

The  main  function  of  the  Panama  Canal  is  one  of  peace.  It  is 
to  link  nations  more  closely  by  bonds  of  travel  and  of  commerce. 
To  symbolize  this  purpose  should  be  chosen  a  vessel  engaged  in 
the  activities  of  peace,  one  sailing  under  the  flag  of  the  republic, 
bound  to  or  from  the  shores  of  this  nation ;  one  which  shall  bear 
the  friendliness  of  the  United  States  of  America  to  the  nations 
of  the  world,  wherever  its  course  may  tend. 

These  purposes  of  the  United  States  could  not  be  fitly  sym- 
bolized by  a  ship  of  war,  however  great  her  excellence  and  how- 
ever perfect  her  equipment.  The  existence  of  such  vessels  may  be 
a  necessity  in  an  age  in  which  international  war  is  still  legalized 
as  a  means  of  settling  international  differences.  But  the  people 
of  the  republic  wish  not  to  glorify  this  necessity.  They  wish  that 
war  may  be  made  the  last,  and  not  the  first,  resort  when  inter- 
national problems  arise.  At  the  best  the  warship  harks  backward 
to  the  history  of  the  past ;  while  the  ship  of  travel  and  commerce 
points  forward  to  our  nation's  ideals  of  the  future. 

This  great  democracy  will  find  its  future  greatness  not  in 
conquest,  not  even  in  self-defense  against  would-be  conquerors, 
but  in  friendly  cooperation,  the  brotherhood  of  men  and  nations, 
the  ennobling  of  the  individual  man,  and  in  increasing  recognition 
of  the  worth  of  human  life. 


IX. 
Twenty-Five  Thousand  at  Panama 

What  shall  we  say  of  the  demand  for  25,000  soldiers  at 
Panama  ? 

We  are  told  that  25,000  men  are  needed  to  guard  the  great 
canal  from  "the  enemy." 

Uncle  Sam,  as  we  know,  is  still  a  very  young  man.  He 
hasn't  yet  got  his  business  head.  But  he  has  Yankee  blood  in 
him  and  he  is  beginning  to  figure. 

A  new  $400,000,000  canal  ought  to  yield  $16,000,000  a  year 
in  net  returns.  Uncle  Sam  doesn't  expect  this,  for  he  is  an 
idealist  and  would  help  on  the  commerce  of  the  world.  Besides, 
he  has  already  given  a  sixth  of  his  receipts  to  build  up  his 
cherished  "Coastwise  Shipping  Trust."  But  he  figures  that  25,- 
ooo  soldiers  at  Panama  may  cost  $25,000,000  a  year.  Forts  and 
fleets  and  fighting  mosquitoes  may  cost  him  how  much  he  does 
not  dare  to  guess.  All  this  amounts  to  the  interest  on  $1,000,000,- 
ooo  and  more. 

One  of  Uncle  Sam's  most  faithful  teachers  and  most  loyal 
friends  has  figured  most  of  this  out  for  him.  Professor  Emory 
R.  Johnson,  canal  commissioner,  estimates  the  total  cost  of  the 
canal  at  $375,000,000.  All  this,  interest  and  principal,  must  be 
paid  from  taxes  or  from  canal  tolls. 

For  the  first  two  or  three  years,  the  most  that  can  be  expected 
in  returns  is  about  $12,600,000  per  year,  if  all  vessels  pay.  If 
coastwise  shipping  is  exempted,  this  will  fall  to  less  than  $10,- 
500,000.  In  ten  years  it  is  hoped  that  the  toll  receipts  will  rise 
to  $17,000,000  yearly.  The  coastwise  exemption  will  reduce  this 
to  less  than  $15,000,000,  unless  that  useless  grant  of  special  privi- 
lege to  "the  most  heavily  protected  interest  in  the  country"  should 
be  repealed. 

"It  is  estimated  that  $19,250,000  will  be  required  annually  to 
make  the  canal  commercially  self-sustaining.  This  total  is  made 


TWENTY-FIVE   THOUSAND   AT    PANAMA  27 

up  of  $3,500,000  for  operating  and  maintenance  expenses ;  $500,- 
ooo  for  sanitation  and  zone  government;  $250,000,  the  annuity 
payable  to  Panama  under  the  treaty  of  1903;  $11,250,000  to  pay 
3  per  cent  on  the  $375,000,000  invested  in  the  canal;  and  $3,- 
750,000  for  an  amortization  fund  of  I  per  cent  per  annum  upon 
the  cost  of  the  canal." 

When  Uncle  Sam  sees  the  plans  for  fortifications,  for  ships 
for  long  range  and  short  range  defense,  the  bill  for  soldiers  and 
officers,  and  the  cost  of  creating  a  military  instead  of  a  commer- 
cial atmosphere,  he  will  finally  conclude  that  it  is  cheaper  and  may 
be  better  to  let  "the  enemy"  seize  the  canal,  furnishing  all  the 
fortresses,  fleets  and  soldiers  for  its  protection,  while  he  puts  his 
own  money  into  better  ventures. 

But  Uncle  Sam  cannot  escape  so  easily,  because  there  is  no 
"enemy."  No  nation  on  earth  would  take  the  Panama  canal 
as  a  gift,  if  the  gift  involved  defense  by  land  and  sea,  or  if  it 
involved  the  loss  of  the  friendship  (that  is,  the  commerce)  of  the 
United  States. 


X. 

The  Canal  and  its  Enemies 

What  answer  shall  we  give  to  Admiral  Mahan's  demand  for 
a  greater  navy  because  the  Panama  Canal  weakens  our  line  of 
defense  ? 

This  tireless  sea-dog,  in  the  New  York  Times,  tells  us  that  the 
Panama  Canal,  once  built  and  provided  with  costly  fortifications, 
so  far  from  strengthening  our  position  in  the  militant  world  (at 
the  best,  precarious),  adds  still  further  to  our  weakness.  Of  our 
whole  coast  "it  is  through  its  isolation  the  most  exposed.  It  is 
intrinsically  the  weak  link  of  the  chain."  "The  fortifications  and 
associated  troops  are  to  insure  this  hold  on  the  canal  while  the 
navy  may  be  absent  on  its  mission  of  action  in  either  ocean,  but 
neither  works  nor  troops  will  secure  ultimate  security  if  the  navy 
be  inferior  to  the  enemy's." 

The  Admiral  does  not  state  who  the  enemy  is  whose  imaginary 
attacks  we  are  spending  so  much  good  money  to  repel.  He  dreams 
of  war,  but  only  of  war  against  "the  enemy."  We  may  infer, 
however,  that  it  is  Japan  who  is  on  the  watch  for  this,  our  weakest 
spot.  He  tells  us  that  "the  population  of  our  Pacific  states  is  less 
than  20  to  the  square  mile,  while  that  of  Japan  is  over  300."  He 
further  clinches  his  purpose  with  reference  to  an  utterance  some 
years  old  of  that  fine  old  Japanese  gentleman,  Count  Itagaki,  who 
has  spent  his  last  years  trying  to  remove  the  element  of  heredity 
from  titles  of  nobility,  and,  thus  far  without  success,  to  get  rid  "of 
his  own  title  of  Count.  Only  the  Emperor  can  cancel  an  honor 
of  this  sort.  Count  Itagaki  believes  that  the  people  of  the  world 
are  entitled  to  access  to  any  part  of  it,  and  that  the  doors  of 
America  should  not  be  closed  to  Japanese  who  may  wish  to  take 
their  part  in  the  building  of  the  West.  Perhaps  he  is  right.  It 
is  a  question  of  social  philosophy,  and  this  noble-spirited  old  man 
has  a  broad  outlook.  But  this  is  far,  very  far,  from  advocating  an 
armed  attack  by  Japanese  ships  and  soldiers  on  the  Isthmus  of 
Panama.  It  is  infinitely  far  from  ensuring  feats  of  arms  or  deeds 


THE    CANAL    AND    ITS    ENEMIES  2Q 

of  violence.  Some  excellent  men  in  the  United  States  have 
thought  that  Canada  should  have  accepted  our  views  of  reci- 
procity. To  say  this  is  very  far  from  committing  armies  to  invade 
Canada,  putting  reciprocity  through  by  force  of  arms. 

The  purposes  of  Japan  are  very  simple.  She  wishes  to  hold 
her  own  at  home,  to  build  up  her  industries,  and  to  pay  her 
debts ;  and  meanwhile  to  make  good  her  ventures  in  Korea  and 
Manchuria.  She  has  passed  through  the  terrible  calamities  of  the 
war  with  Russia,  and  her  tremendous  burden  of  debt  can  not  be 
lifted  for  half  a  century.  She  would  not  fight  us  if  she  could.  She 
could  not  if  she  would, — and  there  is  nothing  in  the  world  to  fight 
about.  It  would  be  easier  for  us  to  seize  any  Japanese  port  than 
for  her  to  seize  Panama.  There  will  be  no  seizing  done  on  either 
side. 

When  information  as  to  Japan's  history,  purposes  and  re- 
sources is  so  readily  accessible  it  is  not  easy  to  be  patient  with 
those  belated  war  experts  who  talk  of  Japanese  invasions,  whether 
in  America,  Australia  or  New  Zealand. 


XL 
The  Size  of  the  Navy 

What  shall  we  say  of  the  size  of  our  navy?  How  many 
warships  do  we  need?  Can  we  do  without  any? 

The  answers  to  these  questions  belong  to  experts, — experts 
in  world-civilization  on  the  one  hand,  in  ship-building  and  ship- 
using  on  the  other.  Perhaps  we  have  no  such  experts  in  this 
country.  In  any  event  they  have  never  come  together,  and  our 
people  have  never  had  a  rational  answer  to  these  questions. 

Let  us  analyze  the  conditions.  For  offense,  we  need  no  ships. 
There  is  no  other  land  we  wish  to  rule,  no  nation  we  wish  to 
injure. 

For  defense,  just  as  little.  There  is  no  power  which  hopes  to 
rule  over  us,  no  enemy  that  dares  or  cares  to  attack.  The  business 
of  America  is  linked  with  all  other  business.  The  commerce  of 
America  enriches  all  our  customers.  It  is  not  good  for  business, 
as  Benjamin  Franklin  once  observed,  "to  knock  our  customers  on 
the  head." 

We  care  not  to  waste  our  money  on  mere  rivalry.  We  are 
in  no  Marathon  race  to  see  who  can  pile  up  the  largest  fleet  or 
who  can  excavate  the  biggest  deficit.  We  care  not  a  straw,  when 
we  are  in  our  senses,  whether  our  navy  in  speed  or  size  or  weight 
of  iron  stands  first  or  tenth  or  twentieth.  Those  who  stimulate 
this  rivalry  have  never  given  to  us  the  slightest  reason  why  we 
should  feel  it.  We  do  not  build  ships  to  awe  the  world.  If  we 
did  we  should  fail,  for  the  world  is  too  busy  with  its  own  affairs 
to  be  afraid  of  a  self-respecting  republic,  no  matter  how  terrible 
its  disguise  of  power.  To  call  a  great  navy  an  instrument  of  peace 
is  one  of  the  giant  jokes  of  the  century.  The  way  to  lasting 
peace  is  not  through  fear  nor  through  bankruptcy.  The  world 
knows — and  we  ought  to  know — that  we  lie  outside  the  sordid 
and  selfish  game  they  call  world  politics. 

The  most  worthy  reasons  for  a  navy  in  the  United  States,  so 
far  as  I  can  read,  are  these:  The  need  of  a  certain  dignity  in 
public  occasions  on  the  sea,  and  the  need  of  a  speedy  way  to  help 
our  American  citizens  who  through  no  fault  of  their  own  may 


THE    SIZE   OF   THE    NAVY  3! 

find  embarrassment  in  foreign  lands.  The  mission  of  the  Ten- 
nessee and  Montana  to  the  shores  of  Turkey  is  a  legitimate  duty 
of  a  nation,  and  the  nation  wants  ample  and  adequate  means  to 
fulfill  such  duties. 

But  a  fleet  to  rival  the  swollen  navies  of  the  Great  Powers 
is  not  needed  for  this  purpose.  If  $13,000,000  per  year  was  a 
generous  allowance  for  our  navy  in  1881,  covering  amply  all 
demands,  it  is  not  clear  why,  in  1911,  with  no  greater  or  different 
duties,  this  cost  need  rise  to  $121,000,000.  A  larger  population, 
a  few  more  helpless  dependencies,  a  more  costly  type  of  ship, — 
all  these  we  may  allow,  making  a  two-fold  or  three-fold  increase 
perhaps.  But  no  one  has  suggested  a  reason  why  the  cost  should 
be  tenfold, — and  there  is  no  reason. 

The  navy,  like  the  army,  should  be  just  as  efficient  as  possible, 
and  just  as  small  as  its  actual  need  permits. 

Surely  we  want  nothing  more.  For  the  cost  and  upkeep  of 
the  four  super-dreadnoughts  now  asked  for,  we  could  build  at 
Washington  the  one  great  national  university  of  the  world :  one 
of  which  every  scholar  or  investigator  the  world  over  must  make 
use;  one  which  could  bring  to  its  halls  almost  every  teacher, 
investigator  or  inventor  of  the  first  rank  the  world  over;  one  by 
the  side  of  which  Harvard,  Columbia,  Chicago  or  Wisconsin, 
Oxford,  Cambridge,  Berlin,  Leipzig,  Paris  as  well  would  seem 
like  fresh-water  colleges.  And  this  would  not  be  for  twenty  years 
at  most,  the  life  of  a  warship.  It  would  give  to  America  the 
intellectual  leadership  of  the  world  perhaps  for  all  time.  There 
is  no  University  in  the  world  which  spends  on  its  teaching  force 
a  million  of  dollars  a  year.  A  million  is  the  interest  on  only 
twenty-five  millions.  How  much  will  sixty  millions  yield? 

Or  if  the  money  were  used  in  another  way,  such  a  sum  would 
go  far  toward  doubling  the  area  of  the  South  and  West.  To 
restrain  the  flood  waters,  to  pour  them  out  on  the  arid  lands,  to 
gather  the  power  increment  of  all  falling  waters.  No  one  can 
foresee  the  extent  to  which  these  enterprises  would  add  to  the 
wealth  and  to  the  effective  happiness  of  our  people.  It  is  worth 
our  while  to  consider  relative  values,  to  spend  generously  where 
spending  counts  and  to  refrain  from  spending  when  the  only 
motive  is  rivalry  or  inertia,  the  inability  to  break  loose  from  an 
evil  fashion,  a  fashion  set  in  other  nations  and  in  other  times. 


XII. 

The  Monroe  Doctrine 

What  shall  we  say  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  as  an  incitement 
to  war?  In  an  address  before  the  Harvard  Union  a  leading 
general  is  reported  as  saying : 

"We  are  the  only  nation  which  stands  for  definite  policies 
which  are  almost  certain  to  bring  us  into  conflict  with  other 
nations  which  are  expanding.  The  Monroe  Doctrine  and  our 
policy  of  not  allowing  even  commercial  coaling  stations  of  other 
powers  in  American  waters  are  practically  sure  to  cramp  foreign 
nations  at  some  time."  It  is  further  assumed  that  this  will  force 
these  nations  into  war  with  us,  hence  the  need  of  450,000  more 
men  who  may  be  mobilized  as  soldiers  in  case  of  need. 

The  Monroe  Doctrine  has  never  been  made  part  of  the  policy 
of  the  United  States  except  by  the  tacit  acceptance  of  the  dictum 
of  Monroe:  President  Monroe  declared  "that  the  United  States 
will  regard  as  unfriendly,  any  attempt  on  the  part  of  European 
powers  to  extend  their  operations  in  the  Western  hemisphere,  or 
any  interference  to  oppress  or  in  any  manner  control  the  destiny 
of  governments  in  this  hemisphere  whose  independence  has  been 
acknowledged  by  the  United  States." 

This  is  a  reasonable  proposition  enough,  provided  that  we  do 
not  push  it  to  offensive  conclusions.  South  America  has  been 
saved  from  the  fate  of  Africa,  though  it  has  had  its  own  troubles 
of  anarchy  and  waste.  In  so  far  the  Monroe  Doctrine  has  served 
its  useful  purpose.  No  European  nation  intends  to  violate  it. 
None  could  afford  to  do  so  even  if  it  had  not  to  reckon  with  the 
United  States.  Individuals  in  Europe  may  scoff  at  it,  as  we  some- 
times speak  disrespectfully  of  the  "Spiked  Helmet,"  but  talk  like 
this  may  not  be  taken  seriously. 

It  is  only  where  our  claims  go  beyond  Monroe,  when  we  seem 
to  patronize  our  neighbors  or  to  use  them  for  our  own  benefit, 
when  we  assume  special  rights  in  Latin  America,  "spheres  of 
influence"  or  other  claims  that  suggest  possible  schemes  of  spolia- 


THE    MONROE   DOCTRINE  33 

tion,  that  opposition  arises.  And  this  opposition  is  not  from 
Europe  but  from  the  South  American  republics.  These  people, 
confident  in  their  own  resources,  naturally  resent  anything  that 
looks  like  an  assumption  of  superiority  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States.  Patronage,  as  such,  is  not  acceptable  as  a  substitute  for 
friendship.  Insistence  on  an  extreme  interpretation  of  the  Mon- 
roe Doctrine  has  developed  the  very  reasonable  Calvo  Doctrine 
that  South  America  is  quite  capable  of  taking  care  of  herself. 
Attempted  forcible  collection  of  bad  debts  has  given  rise  to  the 
Drago  Doctrine  that  no  nation  should  collect  money  for  its  sub- 
jects by  force  of  arms. 

The  Monroe  Doctrine  does  not  object  to  the  docking  privileges 
or  other  conveniences  of  friendly  commerce.  As  it  was  promul- 
gated before  coaling  stations  were  ever  dreamed  of,  it  involves 
no  objection  to  friendly  transfers  which  do  not  subject  the  people 
of  a  republic  to  the  rule  of  a  monarch. 

Dr.  Manuel  de  Oliveira  Lima,  a  leading  statesman  of  Brazil, 
has  recently  declared  that  South  America  is  utterly  opposed  to 
the  Monroe  Doctrine  as  it  stands.  "Not  that  they  do  not  appreci- 
ate the  protection  of  the  power  of  the  United  States,  but  that 
they  are  resentful  of  the  assumption  by  this  country  of  the  power 
of  a  protectorate." 

He  suggests  that  this  doctrine  be  made,  not  a  decree  of  the 
United  States  alone,  but  a  principle  of  Pan-America,  the 
"communal  opposition  of  the  nations  of  the  Western  hemisphere 
against  encroachment,  on  the  principles  laid  down  by  President 
Monroe." 

Why  not  ?  This  would  blend  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  the  Calvo 
Doctrine  and  the  Drago  Doctrine  into  one  broad  and  reasonable 
principle,  acceptable  to  all  really  concerned. 

We  should  be  large  enough,  generous  enough,  broad-minded 
enough,  to  forego  our  national  leadership  in  this  matter  for  the 
general  good-will  of  the  continent. 

If  our  Monroe  Doctrine  as  bluntly  or  acridly  stated  is  a  cause 
for  war,  it  will  be  very  easy  to  do  our  part  in  making  it  a  cause 
for  peace.  And  the  way  to  do  this  has  been  well  indicated  by  the 
statesman  of  Brazil. 

A  recent  effort  to  add  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine  a  clause  in- 


34  WHAT   SHALL   WE   SAY? 

eluding  occupation  of  American  territory  by  foreign  syndicates 
does  not  affect  this  problem  in  any  way.  The  recent  Senate 
Resolution,  itself  based  on  misinformation,  has  no  validity  what- 
ever. The  President  of  the  United  States,  better  acquainted  than 
the  Senate  with  the  facts  concerning  Magdalena  Bay,  did  not 
join  in  this  declaration.  It  is  therefore  null  and  void. 

"The  Senate  cannot  declare  the  policy  of  this  Government,  at 
any  rate,  because  it  cannot  make  it.  It  is  only  part  of  the  treaty- 
making  power  and  only  part  of  the  legislative  power  and  only 
part  of  the  executive  power."  The  President  is  therefore  under 
no  obligation  to  follow  the  dictates  of  such  a  resolution,  and  no 
President  would  do  it  unless  such  action  was  clearly  required  by 
the  public  benefit. 

If,  therefore,  the  Monroe  Doctrine  makes  for  war,  it  is  not 
necessary  to  repeal  it  or  to  modify  it,  but  only  to  share  it  with 
our  sister  republics.  Then  it  will  again  make  for  international 
peace  in  accordance  with  the  original  purpose  of  President 
Monroe. 


XIII. 
Military  Conscription 

What  shall  we  say  to  the  efforts  of  military  experts  in  Great 
Britain,  the  United  States,  and  in  the  great  British  colonies  in 
behalf  of  universal  compulsory  military  service? 

Only  this :  we  will  have  nothing  of  it.  It  is  not  American.  It 
is  not  democratic.  It  is  not  wholesome.  This  service  has  been 
the  curse  of  continental  Europe.  That  no  man  is  a  soldier  against 
his  will  is  the  badge  of  freedom  in  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States.  "Every  Englishman's  house  is  his  castle."  Every  Eng- 
lishman's body  (except  as  freedom  is  lost  by  conviction  of  crime 
or  of  incompetence)  is  secure  from  official  manhandling.  The 
primal  evil  of  compulsory  military  service  is  its  onslaught  on 
personal  freedom.  The  political  evil  is  that  its  purpose  being 
war,  it  keeps  the  air  rilled  with  talk  of  war.  War  would  vanish 
if  people  could  only  "forget  it."  It  is  in  itself  so  irrational,  so 
costly,  so  brutalizing,  that  we  would  have  none  of  it  if  we  could 
separate  it  from  ideas  of  "patriotism"  and  of  glory.  The  con- 
scripts think  of  war  as  the  ultimate  end  for  which  they  are  "doing 
time."  "The  conscripts  hope  for  war,"  writes  a  Bavarian  sharp- 
shooter, "because  they  look  for  a  chance  to  get  even  with  their 
officers."  The  petty  officers,  swarming  in  multitudes,  have  no 
other  thought  than  war.  The  higher  officers  (not  all  of  them) 
look  forward  to  actual  war  for  exercise,  for  promotion,  or  for  the 
test  of  their  unverified  theories  or  of  their  weapons  rusting 
through  years  of  peace.  All  these  men  idle  or  malemployed  pile  up 
the  taxes,  giving  the  workingman  more  and  more  mouths  to  feed. 

We  need  not  deny  a  certain  value — physical,  mental,  or  even 
moral — to  military  drill.  We  need  not  deny  that  a  standing 
army  may  be  made  in  some  degree  a  school  for  the  betterment 
of  the  individual.  We  would  not  in  the  least  depreciate  the  work 
of  those  men  who  have  given  their  lives  to  the  upbuilding  of 
the  character  of  boys  in  military  institutes.  To  act  together,  to 
act  promptly,  to  obey  orders, — all  these  may  constitute  the  best 
of  training  for  young  men.  All  this  has  a  value  wholly  outside 
of  war.  It  has  nothing  to  do  with  unwilling  conscription. 

Enforced  military  service  of  grown  men  bears  the  same  rela- 
tion to  military  discipline  of  willing  students  that  stoking  a 


36  WHAT   SHALL    WE    SAY? 

furnace  bears  to  building  one's  own  campfire  in  a  forest.  The 
successful  military  school  has  sympathetic  teachers,  men  to  whom 
the  end  of  the  work  is  character-building.  It  deals  with  boys  at 
that  age  in  which  order  and  obedience  furnish  the  best  lessons. 
It  is  as  far  away  as  possible  from  the  atmosphere  of  barracks 
and  brothels,  the  chief  features  of  the  idle  standing  army. 

Military  service  considers  only  the  purpose  of  war.  Its 
discipline  the  world  over  is  under  incompetent,  narrow-minded, 
irresponsible,  often  profane  and  brutal  teachers.  As  a  school  it 
is  at  the  best  most  costly,  inefficient  and  belated.  Its  work  is 
begun  too  late  in  life  to  have  educational  value,  even  were  the 
war  authorities  anxious  to  give  the  individual  soldier  industrial 
or  other  training  to  fit  him  for  civil  life.  Besides  this,  the  stand- 
ing army  has  been  for  centuries  the  reservoir  of  the  "red  plague" 
parasites.  Under  the  most  favorable  conditions  physicians  have 
been  able  to  reduce  the  number  of  victims  of  venereal  disease 
from  about  one  in  three  to  one  in  six.  In  tropical  service  the 
proportion  of  men  ruined  or  half  ruined  is  far  greater. 

The  "white  slave  traffic"  of  to-day  is  an  outgrowth  of  the 
standing  army.  Requisitions  have  been  published,  signed  by 
commanding  officers  and  frankly  drawn  on  associations  of  pimps. 
The  term  "white  slave"  was  first  used  by  Napoleon  III,  who 
applied  it  to  his  conscript  soldiers,  those  whom  Napoleon  I  called 
"chair  pour  le  canon"- -"meat  for  the  cannon." 

In  1867,  the  great  journalist  fimile  Girardin  wrote:  "If  war 
is  to  be  suppressed  in  Europe,  this  must  be  done  gradually.  The 
first  step  is  the  abolition  of  the  'white  slave  traffic,' — that  is,  of 
military  serfdom,  the  suppression  of  the  drawing  lots  for  men. 
It  is  here  that  a  beginning  should  be  made." 

Now  that  the  conscriptionists  are  hard  at  work  in  England, 
active  in  the  United  States,  and  successful  in  New  Zealand,  it  is 
time  to  stand  for  individual  freedom  and  individual  peace.  We 
make  no  criticism  of  military  drill  in  schools  or  other  well 
guarded  establishments,  when  it  is  voluntary  and  part  of  a  well- 
planned  course.  We  pledge  ourselves  to  a  permanent  fight 
against  the  military  conscription  which  burdens  Continental 
Europe.  We  find  our  answer  in  the  words  of  the  Honorable  Mr. 
Runciman,  of  the  House  of  Commons,  spoken  at  Elland  in  oppo- 


MILITARY    CONSCRIPTION  37 

sition  to  the  plans  of  Lord  Roberts  in  England:  "Lord  Roberts 
knows  little  of  the  North  of  England  if  he  imagines  that  it  would 
ever  submit  to  conscription.  War  is  only  inevitable  when 
statesmen  cannot  find  a  way  around  or  through  difficulties  that 
may  arise,  or  are  so  wicked  that  they  prefer  the  hellish  method 
of  war  to  any  other  method  of  solution,  or  are  so  weak  as  to  allow 
soldiers,  armament-makers,  or  scaremongers  to  direct  their 
policy." 

In  any  international  difference,  war  should  stand  as  the  last 
resort  and  not  the  first.  If  force  is  kept  in  the  background  and 
all  other  methods  are  tried  out  first,  there  will  not  be  many  wars 
in  your  day  or  mine.  The  few  that  we  shall  see  will  have  the 
motive  of  robbery  of  the  weak,  or  else  the  motive  of  revolt  against 
age-long  operations  of  "military  pacification." 


XIV. 
The  Abolition  of  Piracy 

What  shall  we  say  to  the  plea  of  Dr.  Frederick  Harsley  at  the 
University  of  Berlin,  that  all  war  operations  at  sea  should  be  con- 
fined to  the  three-mile  limit  of  territorial  jurisdiction? 

Why  not?  This  would  be  a  great  move  forward,  and  in  the 
line  of  the  efforts  of  Sir  John  Brunner  and  many  other  good 
men  to  safeguard  private  property  at  sea.  Private  property  on 
land,  if  not  used  for  war  purposes,  is  immune  from  hostile 
seizure.  It  has  been  so  since  1899.  But  private  property  at  sea 
may  be  seized  by  the  crews  of  hostile  vessels  and  taken  as  prizes 
for  their  personal  benefit.  This  right  to  plunder  has  been  sup- 
posed to  stimulate  officers  and  men  to  patriotic  activity.  By  this 
means  England  once  destroyed  Holland's  commerce;  and  those 
who  forget  that  we  live  in  a  changing  world  have  wished  to  hold 
on  to  the  legalized  piracy,  as  a  means,  some  time,  of  doing  the 
same  thing  with  Germany.  This,  it  was  said,  "insures  not  only 
England's  overlordship  of  the  sea,  but  also  her  supremacy  of 
trade  for  all  times."  This  is  no  longer  true,  and  England's  in- 
sistence on  the  right  of  piracy  is  plunging  the  world  into  insol- 
vency. It  is  this  vicious  claim  which  explains,  if  it  does  not 
excuse,  the  huge  naval  armament  of  Germany,  for  "it  is  impos- 
sible to  take,  lying  down,  such  a  perpetual  menace." 

But  the  cruelty  and  folly  of  legalized  piracy  has  become 
apparent  to  wise  and  just  men  in  England.  The  next  Hague 
Conference  will  see  a  determined  effort  to  do  away  with  it,  as 
we  have  already  done  away  with  legalized  pillage  on  land. 

Now  why  not  go  a  step  farther  and  make  the  sea  an  open 
highway  on  which  all  sorts  of  vessels  shall  be  safe  from  all  form 
of  attack?  Why  not  make  belligerent  nations  confine  their  brawls 
to  their  own  shores?  All  the  sea  outside  the  three-mile  limit 
belongs  to  all  the  world.  Let  it  be  made  immune  from  war. 
And  let  it  be  provided,  at  international  expense,  with  ships  for 
protection  of  commerce — not  for  its  destruction.  Let  us  have, 


THE   ABOLITION    OF   PIRACY  39 

as  Dr.  Harsley  urges,  a  life-saving  patrol  for  warning  and  for  help 
when  the  icebergs  come  down  from  the  north.  Let  us  join  to 
destroy  all  derelicts.  Let  us  find  the  dangers  of  the  open  sea,  and 
jointly  remove  them,  without  adding  to  them  the  dangers  involved 
in  the  operations  of  ships  of  war. 

The  naturalists  of  the  world,  led  by  Paul  Sarasin  of  Basle, 
have  already  made  a  plea  for  the  prohibition  of  the  killing  of  the, 
great  sea-going  mammals,  Fur  Seal,  Sea  Otter,  Walrus,  Sea 
Lion,  Whale,  outside  of  the  three-mile  limits  of  the  coasts  where 
these  creatures  breed.  On  no  other  terms  can  these  splendid 
animals  be  preserved  for  future  generations.  Why  not  do  the 
same  by  Man,  the  greatest  of  all  seafaring  creatures?  Why  not 
let  his  path  at  sea  be  free  from  all  dangers  from  his  fellow-men? 
Why  not  recognize  the  supreme  value  of  the  right  to  trade  and 
travel?  If  men  must  be  killed  on  a  large  scale  in  international 
rivalry,  why  not  take  the  matter  out  of  the  world  jurisdiction  and 
confine  the  slaughter  to  the  territorial  waters  of  the  nations 
concerned  ? 

The  navies  of  the  world  must  melt  away.  The  taxpayers  of 
the  world  cannot  stand  the  drain  much  longer.  Why  not  take 
away  their  chief  excuse  and  build  up  the  merchant  fleets  instead  ? 


XV. 
Entangling  Alliances 

What  shall  we  say  of  Washington's  warning  that  we  of  the 
United  States  should  keep  free  from  "entangling  alliances"? 
Do  we  realize  how  sound  this  advice  was,  and  that  the  provision 
of  our  constitution  which  prevents  secret  treaties  is  one  of  the 
most  valuable  clauses  in  that  noble  document? 

In  it,  we  may  remember,  it  is  provided  that  an  international 
treaty  originating  with  the  executive  must  be  approved  openly 
by  the  Senate  before  it  can  have  any  value.  No  minister,  no 
president,  can  secretly  pledge  the  nation  to  any  line  of  action. 
No  president,  no  senate,  no  congress,  acting  alone  can  make  any 
declaration  of  national  policy.  For  these  reasons,  the  United 
States  must  stand  outside  of  the  tangled  snarl  of  concessions  and 
intrigues  which  we  call  "world  politics."  It  must  play  its  inter- 
national games  with  open  hands.  It  cannot  be  the  secret  friend 
of  any  other  nation.  It  cannot  be  a  secret  enemy,  because  all  acts 
of  friendship  or  of  hostility  are  open  to  all  the  world. 

In  the  present  crisis  in  European  politics  the  people  in  no 
nation  know  where  the  nation  stands.  By  the  law  of  "con- 
tinuity of  policy"  Sir  Edward  Grey,  in  London,  is  bound  to 
the  international  agreements  made  by  his  predecessor  in  office, 
his  opponent  in  politics.  No  English  citizen  knows  how  far  he 
is  pledged  to  France,  or  to  what  degree  he  is  to  be  blind  to  the 
designs  of  Russia.  He  knows  that  there  is  a  "triple  entente,"  a 
three-cornered  understanding,  and  that  this  entente  pledges  Eng- 
land to  inaction  in  Morocco,  Persia  or  Mongolia  and  to  acute  and 
active  protest  should  Germany  attempt  to  extend  her  control  by 
force.  In  like  fashion  Germany  is  bound  to  Austria,  to  Italy,  to 
Turkey,  in  varying  degrees ;  and  no  German  knows  when  his 
empire's  responsibility  in  the  renewed  Triple  Alliance  may  leave 
off.  Germany  may  suspect  Austria  of  a  desire  to  fight,  in  order 
to  secure  unity  at  home.  She  may  disapprove  of  Italian  greed 
and  folly.  She  may  deplore  the  fate  of  Turkey  or  she  may 


ENTANGLING   ALLIANCES  4! 

recognize  it  as  just  or  inevitable.  No  good  citizen  of  Germany 
cares  a  straw  whether  Durazzo  is  in  Servian  or  in  Austrian  hands, 
or  in  the  hands  of  its  own  people  to  whom  it  really  belongs.  The 
very  existence  of  Durazzo  is  no  concern  of  his.  But  the  secret 
treaty  may  force  him  to  give  up  his  life  somewhere  in  the  blood- 
washed  Balkans,  that  Austria  may  block  Servia's  hoped  for 
"window  to  the  sea."  He  can  only  guess  at  the  future.  He  must 
await  the  outcome  of  the  secret  treaty  before  he  can  define  his 
own  patriotism. 

The  secret  treaty  is  a  relic  of  the  military  state.  The  civilized 
world  is  still  organized  on  the  mediaeval  theory  that  war  is  a 
natural  function  to  be  expected  in  the  normal  course  of  events,  not 
a  hideous  moral,  physical,  and  financial  catastrophe.  In  the  old 
theory  as  expounded  by  Machiavelli,  the  king  has  no  other  busi- 
ness but  war.  It  is  the  duty  of  his  ministers  to  find  weak  places 
in  the  defenses  of  other  kings  through  which  war  may  be  success- 
ful, and  to  find,  after  the  fact,  excuses  by  which  war  can  be 
justified.  The  late  Italian  war  was  begun  and  continued  on 
strictly  mediaeval  lines.  The  secret  treaty,  the  concession  to  a 
friendly  power,  the  artificial  interference  with  a  rival, — all  these, 
belong  to  the  days  of  Machiavelli.  If  all  parties  concerned  could 
come  out  into  the  open,  where  the  United  States  is  forced  to 
stand,  we  should  soon  have  an  end  to  the  Anglo-German  struggle, 
of  the  rivalry  between  the  Triple  Entente  and  the  Triple  Alliance. 

Outworn  ideas  of  national  glory,  outworn  figures  of  speech 
as  to  national  purposes,  outworn  mediaevalism  in  our  conception 
of  the  state, — all  these  find  expression  in  the  "secret  treaty,"  the 
"entangling  alliance,"  which  is  a  chief  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the 
conciliation  of  nations. 


XVI. 
The  Pest  of  Glory 

What  shall  we  say  of  the  progress  in  the  art  of  killing  in  these 
centuries  of  Christian  civilization? 

Benjamin  Franklin,  in  1782,  after  the  battle  of  Martinique, 
wrote  thus  of  what  he  elsewhere  called  the  "Pest  of  Glory" :  "A 
young  Angel  of  distinction  being  sent  down  to  this  world  on 
some  business  for  the  first  time,  had  an  old  courier  spirit  assigned 
him  as  a  guide.  They  arrived  over  the  seas  of  Martinico  in  the 
middle  of  the  long  day  of  obstinate  fight  between  the  fleets  of 
Rodney  and  de  Grasse.  When,  through  the  crowds  of  smoke,  he 
saw  the  fire  of  the  guns,  the  decks  covered  with  mangled  limbs 
and  bodies  dead  or  dying,  the  ships  sinking,  burning  or  blown  into 
the  air,  and  the  quantity  of  pain,  misery  and  destruction  the 
crews  yet  alive  were  thus  with  so  much  eagerness  dealing  around 
to  one  another:  he  turned  eagerly  to  his  guide  and  said:  'You 
blundering  blockhead  you,  so  ignorant  of  your  business ;  you 
undertook  to  conduct  me  to  Earth,  and  you  have  brought  me  to 
Hell.'  'No,  sir,'  replied  the  guide  ;  'I  have  made  no  mistake.  This 
is  really  the  Earth,  and  these  are  men.  Devils  never  treat  each 
other  in  this  cruel  manner.  They  have  more  sense  and  more  of 
what  men  call  humanity.'  " 


Gustaf  Janson  of  Sweden,  in  1912,  one  hundred  and  thirty 
years  later,  after  the  battle  of  the  Tripoli  Oasis,  wrote  thus  of 
what  he  called  "the  pride  of  war" : 

The  bird-man  had  returned  from  his  flight  into  the  desert 
where  the  bombs  he  threw  had  stirred  up  the  sands  about  the 
Arab  encampment. 

"The  general  shook  him  warmly  by  the  hand  once  more  and 
stood  for  a  few  minutes  sunk  in  thought.  'Gentlemen,'  be  began 
suddenly,  turning  to  the  officers,  'it  is  incredible  how  the  tech- 
nique of  war  has  changed.  Telephones,  telegraphs,  wireless  com- 
munications— war  makes  use  of  all  these.  It  presses  every  new 


THE    PEST   OF    GLORY  43 

invention  into  its  service.  Really,  most  impressive.  I  have  just 
been  reading  the  latest  aviation  news  from  Europe.  Our  ally 
Germany  and  our  blood-relation  France  possess  at  this  moment 
the  largest  fleets  of  aeroplanes  in  the  world.  The  distance  between 
Metz  and  Paris  can  be  covered  in  a  few  hours.  The  three  hun- 
dred aeroplanes  which  Germany  possesses  at  this  moment,  all 
constructed  and  bought  in  France,  could  throw  down  ten  thousand 
kilos  of  dynamite  on  the  metropolis  of  the  world  in  less  than  half 
an  hour.  This  is  a  positively  gigantic  thought !  In  the  middle 
of  the  night  these  three  hundred  flying-machines  cross  the  border, 
and  before  daybreak  Paris  is  a  heap  of  ruins!  Magnificent, 
gentlemen,  magnificent!  .  .  .  Unexpectedly,  without  any  pre- 
vious warning,  the  rain  of  dynamite  bursts  over  the  town.  One 
explosion  follows  on  the  other.  Hospitals,  theatres,  schools, 
museums,  public  buildings,  private  houses — all  are  demolished. 
The  roofs  break  in,  the  floors  sink  through  to  the  cellars,  crum- 
bling ruins  block  up  the  streets.  The  sewers  break  and  send  their 
foul  contents  over  everything  .  .  .  everything.  The  water  pipes 
burst  and  there  are  floods.  The  gas  pipes  burst,  gas  streams  out 
and  explodes  and  causes  an  outbreak  of  fire.  The  electric  light 
goes  out.  You  hear  sound  of  people  running  together,  cries  for 
help,  shrieking  and  wailing,  the  splashing  of  water,  the  roaring 
of  fire.  And  above  it  all  can  be  heard  the  detonations  occurring 
with  mathematical  precision.  Walls  fall  in,  whole  buildings 
disappear  in  the  gaping  ground.  Men,  women  and  children  rush 
about  mad  with  terror  among  the  ruins.  They  drown  in  filth,  they 
are  burnt,  blown  to  pieces  in  explosions,  annihilated,  exterminated. 
Blood  streams  over  the  ruins  and  filth ;  gradually  the  shrieks  for 
help  die  down.  When  the  last  flying-machine  has  done  its  work 
and  turned  northwards  again,  the  bombardment  is  finished.  In 
Paris  a  stillness  reigns,  such  as  has  never  reigned  there  before. 

"  'We  can  imagine,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  French  have 
carried  out  this  same  operation  against  Berlin,  or  possibly  London. 
Who  knows  what  political  combination  the  future  may  have  in 
store  ?  But  be  that  as  it  may,  it  only  remains  to  us  gratefully  to 
dedicate  ourselves  to  the  new  and  glorious  task  now  set  before 
us.  Gentlemen,  I  bare  my  head  before  the  marvelous  and  un- 
ceasing progress  of  mankind.'  The  general  removed  his  cap,  and 


44  WHAT    SHALL    WE   SAY? 

his  voice  vibrated  with  gratitude  to  the  merciful  Providence  which 
would  perhaps  grant  that  he  would  live  to  see  this  vision  come 
true;  and  he  continued:  'In  the  face  of  this  triumphant  progress 
which  I  have  just  described  I  am  not  overstepping  the  mark  when 
I  say  that  we  are  approaching  perfection.'  " 

In  1912  Israel  Zangwill,  in  "The  War  God,"  writes : 
"To   safeguard  peace  zve  must  prepare   for  war" — 
/  know  that  maxim;  it  was  forged  in  hell. 
This  wealth  of  ships  and  guns  inflames  the  vulgar 
And  makes  the  very  war  it  guards  against. 
The  God  of  War  is  now  a  man  of  business, 
With  vested  interests. 

So  much  sunk  Capital,  such  countless  callings, 
The  Army,  Navy,  Medicine,  the  Church — 
To  bless  and  bury — Music,  Engineering, 
Red-tape  Departments,  Commissariats, 
Stores,  Transports,  Ammunition,  Coaling-stations, 
Fortifications,  Cannon-foundries,  Shipyards, 
Arsenals,  Ranges,  Drill-halls,  Floating  Docks, 
War-loan  Promoters,  Military  Tailors, 
Camp-followers,    Canteens,   War    Correspondents, 
Horse-breeders,  Armourers,  Torpedo-builders, 
Pipeclay  and  Medal  Vendors,  Big  Drum  Makers, 
Gold  Lace  Embroiderers,  Opticians,  Buglers, 
Tent-makers,  Banner-weavers,  Powder-mixers, 
Crutches  and  Cork  Limb  Manufacturers, 
Balloonists,  Mappists,  Heliographers, 
Inventors,  Flying  Men,  and  Diving  Demons, 
Beelzebub  and  all  his  hosts,  who,  whether 
In  Water,  Earth,  or  Air,  among  them  pocket — 
When  Trade  is  brisk — a  million  pounds  a  week ! 

It  is  said  that,  for  a  century  or  more  after  the  death  of  jSsus, 
no  follower  of  his  was  enrolled  in  any  army  or  took  part  in  any 
battle.  This  may  not  be  literally  true,  but  it  was  true  in  spirit. 
The  centurion,  Maximilian,  we  are  told,  "threw  down  his  military 
belt  at  the  head  of  his  legion,  saying:  'I  am  a  Christian,  there- 
fore I  cannot  fight!'  ";  and  these  words,  says  Harnack,  became  a 
common  formula  with  men  who  believed  in  a  brotherhood  not  to 
be  achieved  through  killing.  It  was  only  under  Constantine 
(A.D.  312)  that  the  Cross  was  brought  into  the  service  of  war. 


XVII. 
The  Force  of  Arms 

What  shall  we  say  to  the  claim  that  the  stability  of  a  nation 
must  rest  on  compulsion ;  that  in  the  last  analysis  authority  means 
force  of  arms?  In  America,  we  have  thought  that  in  the  free 
will  of  a  free  people  there  lay  a  force  of  union  greater  than  the 
power  of  any  army.  We  have  supposed  that  the  real  force  behind 
our  institution  lay  in  public  opinion,  the  collective  judgment  of 
free  men. 

This  is  a  force,  we  know,  -with  which  we  all  must  reckon  ; 
a  force  that  stands  at  the  opposite  pole  from  the  force  of  arms, — 
the  force  of  public  opinion.  Is  there  not  a  fallacy  somewhere 
in  our  use  of  the  word  "force"?  The  "force  of  arms"  is  not  a 
"force" ;  it  is  a  fear, — the  fear  of  being  murdered.  It  has  no 
potency  among  the  fearless,  the  resolute,  the  desperate.  It  is 
operative  only  when  men  consider  their  chances,  as  of  sudden 
death,  against  their  devotion  to  the  line  of  action,  right  or  wrong, 
against  which  the  force  of  arms  may  be  directed. 

Once  perhaps  the  force  of  arms  may  have  been  really  physical 
force.  The  power  of  muscle  and  of  fists,  may  have  brought  some 
refractory  family  or  tribe  to  order.  Struggle  is  inherent  whenever 
men  are  brought  together.  Nowhere  do  men  in  the  large  have 
like  interests,  like  purposes,  like  feelings.  But  struggle  is  not 
force  of  arms,  and  the  normal  rivalries  of  men  do  not  involve  the 
necessity  of  killing.  The  power  to  kill  without  redress  and  the 
fear  of  killing  are  both  involved  in  the  force  of  arms. 

And  as  military  affairs  progress  we  go  further  and  further 
from  the  idea  of  force.  Modern  war  takes  no  account  of  normal 
courage  or  personal  strength.  Torpedoes  and  lyddite  recognize 
no  heroes.  The  strong  are  led  forth  to  slaughter,  not  as  abler 
fighters,  but  as  better  able  to  bear  the  strain  of  camp  or  march, 
as  looking  better  in  a  uniform. 

The  end  of  war  is  exhaustion  on  both  sides.  Not  exhaustion 
of  physical  force,  but  of  loans  and  taxes.  When  war  decides,  in 


46  WHAT    SHALL    WE   SAY? 

the  last  analysis,  it  is  not  force  but  fear  which  determines  the 
solution.  And  fear  was  never  the  foundation  of  ihe  stability  of 
any  nation. 

If  China,  for  example,  should  build  up  a  great  army,  to  pro- 
mote internal  stability,  the  effort  would  be  sure  to  fail.  A  great 
army  may  hold  communities  in  awe,  it  may  fill  the  air  with  war, 
it  may  egg  on  the  spirit  of  glory,  it  may  inflame  ambitions  and 
antipathies.  But  no  nation  can  build  its  institutions  upon  it.  It 
is  no  factor  in  a  great  republic ;  it  is  no  bond  of  union  among  self- 
respecting  men.  To  found  a  nation  upon  force  of  arms  is  to 
build  on  sand.  Even  Germany's  unity  is  not  one  of  blood  and  iron. 
It  rests  on  the  wide-spread  intelligence  of  the  German  schools, 
the  well-planned  training  of  her  industrialism,  the  "wide-flung" 
justice  of  her  code  of  laws. 

"Dominion  over  palm  and  pine"  avails  nothing  unless 
dominion  has  its  real  root  in  the  hearts  of  a  grateful  people. 
The  "wide-flung  battle-line"  can  hold  nothing  worth  keeping 
unless  there  grow  up  ties  of  common  thought  and  common  interest 
which  in  time  will  banish  all  need  of  lines  of  battle. 


XVIII. 
The  Fighting  Edge 

What  shall  we  say  of  the  dangers  we  run  by  losing  our 
''fighting  edge"? 

A  military  expert  is  reported  to  have  declared  at  the  Harvard 
Union :  "When  a  nation  becomes  large  and  rich  and  inert  it  is 
certain  of  annihilation  by  other  powers."  Shades  of  the  Goths 
and  Vandals !  When  did  all  this  happen  ?  When  did  an  inert 
nation  become  rich  ?  When  did  a  rich  nation  ever  become  inert  ? 
There  is  only  one  way.  This  was  the  Roman  way:  To  become 
rich  by  plunder;  to  become  inert  by  the  loss  of  strong  men,  by 
the  loss  of  the  great  widening  wedge  of  those  who  should  have 
been  their  descendants.  This  is  the  way  of  the  armed  host ;  and 
in  history,  each  nation  dependent  on  force  of  arms  has  found  in 
it  its  final  undoing. 

Rome  seized  the  fruits  of  other  people's  industry.  Her  strong 
young  men  were  sent  far  and  wide,  over  the  accessible  world, 
never  to  return.  They  left  no  offspring  at  home.  Her  leaders 
fought  each  other  back  and  forth  in  Rome,  until,  in  the  words  of 
the  latest  and  best  of  her  historians,  "Only  cowards  remained,  and 
from  their  brood  alone  came  the  new  generations."  The  Romans 
conquered  the  world ;  and  the  Romans  at  home  sprang  from  the 
man  who  was  left, — from  the  man  whom  war  could  not  use.  The 
city  of  Rome  filled  up  like  an  overflowing  marsh,  but  her  people 
were  not  true  Romans.  They  were  sons  of  slaves,  scullions, 
peddlers,  sutlers,  adventurers,  get-rich-quick  men  from  the  ends 
of  the  earth.  To  cultivate  the  Roman  fields,  the  historian  tells  us, 
"whole  tribes  were  taken."  "Out  of  every  hundred  thousand 
strong  men,  eighty  thousand  were  slain ;  out  of  every  hundred 
thousand  weaklings,  ninety  to  ninety-five  thousand  were  left  to 
survive." 

Even  at  the  best,  or  the  worst,  Rome  was  not  rich.  It  was 
only  the  few  who  controlled  the  plunder.  It  was  only  the  Caesars 
and  the  favorites  of  Caesars  who  found  place  on  the  Palatine  Hill. 


48  WHAT    SHALL    WE   SAY? 

For  the  mob  there  was  no  participation.  Their  part  was  bread 
and  circuses. 

No  nation  is  really  rich  unless  it  grows  rich  evenly.  No 
nation  grows  rich  evenly  save  by  industry  and  trade.  No  nation, 
rich  or  poor,  ever  grew  inert  through  industry.  The  only  ex- 
haustion history  has  known  is  war  exhaustion.  This  is  expressed 
in  terms  of  waste  and  debt :  crushing  taxes  on  the  one  hand,  and 
reversed  selection, — the  survival,  not  of  the  fittest,  but  of  the 
weakest.  This  shows  itself  in  loss  of  initiative,  in  over-caution 
and  undue  patience  in  facing  the  ills  of  life,  in  corruption,  in 
despotism,  in  dependence  on  violence  instead  of  reason  in  meeting 
the  national  crises. 

For  all  force  of  arms  is  a  confession  of  weakness.  It  is  a 
confession  that  the  cause  it  represents  is  not  founded  in  reason, 
in  justice,  not  fixed  in  the  hearts  of  the  people. 

"You  cannot  organize  a  pirate  crew  until  its  members  drop 
the  use  of  force  one  against  another."  The  weapon  of  force 
"produces  the  very  evils  it  was  forged  to  prevent."  The  force  of 
arms  as  a  cementing  influence  is  the  badge  of  political  inefficiency. 
The  mailed  fist  is  the  dependence  of  the  weak  nations,  not  of  the 
strong.  Strong  men  are  "too  self-willed  and  too  independent  to 
allow  any  one  to  rule  over  them  but  themselves." 

It  was  this  thought  that  led  Martin  Luther  to  declare  that 
no  League  of  Princes  could  help  on  the  German  Reformation  of 
religion.  "God  is  a  righteous  but  marvelous  judge,"  he  said. 
"Sickingen's  fall  is  a  verdict  of  the  Lord  that  the  force  of  arms 
must  be  kept  far  from  matters  of  the  Gospel." 

There  is  no  Orozco,  nor  Zapata,  no  Alva  nor  Tilly,  no  Goth 
nor  Vandal  nor  Moor  nor  Hun  who  can  over-run  our  nation  so 
long  as  we  thrive  in  the  arts  of  peace.  To  be  large  and  rich  and 
courteous  and  reasonably  honest  is  to  make  all  other  nations  our 
friends  and  our  debtors. 

It  is  the  business  of  'a  sentinel  on  the  watch  towers  of  the 
outer  gate  to  keep  us  alert  to  every  passing  shade.  It  is  the 
business  of  good  citizens  to  keep  their  heads  and  to  trust  their 
neighbors  so  long  as  they  know  these  to  be  good  citizens  too. 

"The  soldier  is  not  to  be  blamed  for  doing  his  work.    It  is  the 


THE   FIGHTING   EDGE  49 

civilian  who  should  be  blamed  for  not  adding  the  proper  supple- 
ment." The  citizen  should  size  up  the  situation.  It  is  his  nation. 
He  pays  the  bills.  He  suffers  from  the  waste.  If  you  live  in  a 
fire-proof  house,  no  use  to  spend  two-thirds  your  income  on 
fire  insurance.  And  don't  depend  on  the  insurance  agent  to  set 
you  right. 


XIX. 
The  Net  of  the  Usurer 

What  shall  we  say  of  the  net  of  the  usurer,  which  we  are  told 
stifles  all  activities  of  Europe  in  war  or  peace? 

Men  have  been  made  free  by  war.  Why  not  again  ?  Why  not 
break  the  net  in  which  we  are  confined  ? 

Because  it  will  not  break  by  war,  for  in  war  it  was  woven. 

Mr.  Cecil  Chesterton  (not  the  real  Chesterton,  whose  name 
is  Gilbert)  first  coined  this  phrase,  the  "Net  of  the  Usurer," 
another  name  for  the  "Unseen  Empire"  of  finance.  With  a 
mixture  of  metaphors  worthy  of  a  greater  humorist,  he  looks  to 
war  to  tear  this  usurer's  net,  because  a  costly  war  may  rip  the 
usurer's  purse  as  well.  That  the  banker  may  lose  money  does 
not  ease  up  on  the  banker's  creditors.  For  old  wars,  we  liave 
pawned  our  freedom ;  and  war  will  not,  on  further  borrowed 
money,  restore  it. 

Mr.  Chesterton  would  have  France  fight  this  war  of  release, 
and  that  against  Germany  (although  the  usurer  mostly  lives  in 
France),  the  purpose  being  to  save  Europe  from  the  infection 
of  German  ideas,  especially  "the  idea  that  you  can  make  a  na- 
tion strong  by  making  its  people  behave  like  cattle." 

This  idea  may  be  a  bad  one,  but  it  cannot  be  suppressed  by 
killing  Germans  or  being  killed  by  them.  It  is  itself  purely  a 
war  idea,  and  more  war  will  not  cure  it.  Our  nets  were  all  woven 
by  war,  not  by  any  usurer. 

More  war  will  only  draw  the  net  tighter.  If  we  cannot  find 
freedom  in  self-government,  in  peace,  we  cannot  find  it  at  all. 
The  first  step  toward  freedom  is  to  get  out  of  debt.  Only  thus 
can  we  "break  the  net  of  the  usurer."  How  is  this  done?  Not 
by  more  wars,  more  waste,  more  corruption,  more  military  oc- 
cupation,— with  their  legacy  of  more  wars,  more  waste,  and  more 
corruption.  By  such  means  the  net  was  spread  in  the  first  place. 
There  is  but  one  way  to  break  it.  It  is  by  mending  our  own  ways, 


THE    NET   OF   THE    USURER  51 

by  moving  away  from  the  pitfalls  over  which  the  net  was  spread. 
It  is  by  patience,  frugality,  limitation  of  governmental  expendi- 
tures, the  elimination  of  privilege,  by  the  "humble  and  contrite 
heart"  in  public  affairs,  by  preparing  for  peace  and  not  for  war, 
by  stimulating  science,  education,  sanitation  and  industry,  by  na- 
tional justice,  economy  and  solvency, — methods  in  national  ad- 
ministration that  would  bring  about  the  desired  result  in  the  af- 
fairs of  the  individual.  The  double  standard  in  morals  of  the 
man  and  the  nation — the  idea  that  what  is  wrong  for  the  man  is 
right  for  the  group — this  has  led  only  to  evil.  Equally  evil  is  the 
double  standard  of  economics,  that  what  would  bankrupt  the  man 
would  cover  the  nation  with  glory. 

If  the  system  by  which  men  and  races  are  grouped  in  nations 
is  to  succeed, — and  it- is  still  on  trial, — the  administration  of  na- 
tions must  follow  the  same  laws  of  ethics  and  economics  which 
control  the  actions  of  men.  "My  country,  right  or  wrong,"  is  a 
principle  as  dangerous  as  the  braggart  assertion  of  the  "super- 
man" that  he  will  do  whatever  he  pleases  regardless  of  the  laws 
of  man  or  of  God.  There  is  no  such  right  of  man  or  nation. 
Whatever  mistake  either  may  make  in  matters  of  ethics  or  of 
economics,  brings,  in  its  degree,  its  sure  penalty.  And  "the  net 
of  the  usurer"  is  the  prison  in  which  nations  which  waste  their 
people's  substance,  in  whatever  way,  will  find  themselves  pres- 
ently confined.  The  road  leads  through  insolvency  and  violence. 
The  sole  escape  is  to  turn  about  and  go  the  other  way. 


XX. 
The  Fertile  Dreadnaught 

What  shall  we  say  of  the  advocates  for  peace  who  stand  at 
the  same  time  for  a  great  navy  and  corresponding  military  ex- 
penditures ? 

We  shall  say  that  we  believe  that  they  are  mistaken.  Without 
other  reason  we  may  not  doubt  their  sincerity.  But  we  may  ques- 
tion their  judgment.  Nothing  is  more  important  than  the  main- 
tenance of  peace.  But  the  show  of  force  does  not  seem  a  good 
means  to  this  end.  Besides,  it  is  most  costly.  If  one-fourth  of 
our  present  expenditures  were  more  than  adequate  twenty  years 
ago,  half  of  the  expenditures  of  to-day  are  on  the  wrong  side  of 
the  account. 

War  instruments  are  built  for  war.  Their  influence  tends 
toward  its  destined  end.  Those  who  make  war  are  not  appalled 
by  them.  Reckless  daredevils,  these  warriors,  they  fear  nothing ; 
they  have  nothing  to  lose.  It  is  the  plain  man  who  pays  the 
cost.  And  cost  multiplies  cost.  Once  started  on  the  line  of  war 
preparation  and  the  expenses  pile  up  with  mathematical  certainty 
and  with  no  regard  to  real  needs.  Whatever  movement  has  money 
behind  it  calls  for  more  money.  No  nation  has  any  system  of 
checking  expenditure.  Debt  breeds  debt  and  waste  breeds  waste. 
That  war  expenditures  are  four  times  as  great  as  twenty  years  ago 
implies  no  increase  of  danger  anywhere.  It  means  only  that  four 
times  as  many  people  are  making  a  living  by  them.  That  the 
taxes  of  the  world  have  doubled  in  fifteen  years  rests  on  the  fact 
that  twice  as  many  people  are  tax-eaters. 

It  is  a  fine  saying  of  Norman  Angell,  that  "War  is  futile  but 
not  sterile."  Most  wars  settle  nothing,  accomplish  nothing;  but 
each  is  descended  from  some  other  war,  and  each  tends  to  be- 
come the  parent  of  new  conflicts.  Just  so  with  all  schemes  for 
expenditure.  The  dreadnaught  is  futile  enough:  no  returns  of 
good  in  any  land  can  be  traced  back  to  it.  But  it  is  not  sterile. 
It  gives  birth  to  new  dreadnaughts,  at  home  and  abroad.  En- 
glish dreadnaughts  breed  German.  German  dreadnaughts  are 
the  parents  of  the  American  fleet.  Our  navy  is  the  parent  of  the 


THE    FERTILE    DREADNAUGHT  53 

growing  fleets  of  Brazil,  Argentina  and  Japan.  Each  avoidable 
expenditure  calls  for  more  expense.  Even  worthy  expenditure 
has  the  same  bad  habit,  as  the  number  of  persons  interested  in 
it  expands.  The  wedge  of  the  well-earned  pension  of  the  maimed 
soldier  has  opened  the  door  of  something  for  nothing  for  thous- 
ands of  other  soldiers,  the  gift  culminating  but  not  ending  in  the 
demoralizing  service  pension  of  to-day. 

Forty  years  ago  the  Germans  exacted  from  France  the  un- 
heard of  indemnity  of  a  billion  dollars.  In  fifty  years,  our  south- 
ern states  have  paid  about  double  that  sum  in  pensions. 

There  is  under  consideration  at  Washington  a  bill  which  pro- 
poses to  pay  national  money  to  the  militia  of  the  various  states. 
The  sums  suggested  range  from  $45  to  $360  yearly  for  each  in- 
dividual. This  is  for  service  hitherto  taken  as  an  honor,  a  patri- 
otic duty,  or  a  healthy  recreation.  One  of  the  evil  effects  of  such 
a  proposition  (and  all  its  effects  appear  to  be  evil)  is  this:  that 
such  expense  breeds  more  expense.  It  is  the  beginning  of  an  at- 
tempt to  create  a  standing  army,  neither  soldier  nor  civilian, 
its  reason  for  existence  being  the  money  that  is  in  it.  As  more 
and  more  persons  become  financially  interested,  the  method  of 
log-rolling  will  increase  this  largess  from  a  few  to  many  millions. 
It  will  go  the  way  of  the  pension  bills.  What  was  originally  a 
sacred  duty  of  a  grateful  nation  has  become  one  of  the  scandals 
of  the  century.  The  money  in  it  demands  more  money.  It  will 
be  the  same  with  the  militia  bill.  Futile  but  not  sterile  are  all  our 
preparations  for  war  in  a  time  of  trebly-assured  peace. 

War  money  makes  war  talk.  War  talk  perverts  public  opin- 
ion. It  increases  the  possibility  of  war,  by  making  war  seem 
easy  and  familiar,  even  inevitable.  More  war  ships,  more  soldiers 
do  not  allay  this.  They  mean  more  war  money,  more  war  talk, 
more  expenditure. 

The  way  to  peace  lies  in  the  opposite  direction.  It  lies  in 
friendly  relations  and  in  friendly  commerce,  in  the  extension  of 
international  law,  in  the  patient  removal  of  possible  stumbling 
blocks,  the  loyal  ignoring  of  real  differences  if  such  exist,  and 
making  war  never  the  first  resort,  but  always  the  very  last  resort 
in  every  real  crisis  of  the  nation. 


XXI. 

The  Dream  of  Invasion 

What  shall  we  say  of  those  in  search  of  fighting  chances 
who  still  fix  their  eyes  on  Japan? 

We  who  know  Japan  as  a  nation  of  patient,  lovable  people, 
intent  on  their  own  affairs,  hopeful,  sensitive,  eager  for  the  good 
will  of  their  neighbors,  burdened  to  the  utmost  with  the  cost 
of  their  experiences  in  Korea  and  Manchuria, — we  can  see  no 
reality  in  their  signs  and  portents. 

We  cannot  conceive  of  a  war  between  Japan  and  the  United 
States.  We  would  feel  in  such  a  condition  the  most  intense 
humiliation ;  but  we  cannot  imagine  it  as  anywhere  within  the 
range  of  human  possibility.  If  such  a  horror  were  to  come  to 
pass  we  should  have  to  imagine  the  following  series  of  incidents 
in  our  future  history: 

1 i )  The  abandonment  of  our  unchanged  tradition  of  national 
friendliness  toward  Japan.     Thus  far,  whatever  may  have  been 
done  or  said  by  individuals,  our  Government  has  preserved  for 
sixty  years  an  unbroken  attitude  of  courtesy  and  friendliness. 

(2)  That  such  breaches  of  this  rule  as  might  arise  in  Wash- 
ington should  be  of  such  a  character  as  to  arouse  an  insatiable 
feeling  of  humiliation  and  an  uncontrollable  spirit  of  revenge  on 
the  part  of  the  Japanese  people.     This  spirit  must  be  so  strong 
as  to  overturn  the  patient  and  conservative  ministry  which  desires 
and  must  desire,  above  almost  all  other  things  political,  to  retain 
the  good  will  of  the  United  States. 

(3)  That  this  supposed  outbreak  should  take  place  before  the 
American  advisers  in  the  Japanese  Government  could  make  their 
influence  felt  toward  mutual  understanding  and  before  the  friends 
of  international  decency  in  America  could  exert  a  similar  influence. 

(4)  It  would  further  be  essential  that  the  rulers  of  Japan 
should   be   determined   on   national   suicide   in   the   face   of   this 
assumed  provocation.    To  send  an  armada  to  attack  on  her  own 
ground  6,000  miles  away  a  nation  of  twenty  times  her  wealth  and 


THE   DREAM    OF    INVASION  55 

practically  out  of  debt,  with  a  population  half  greater,  would  be 
self-destruction. 

(5)  It  would  involve  further  the  necessity  that  the  cause  of 
war  was  so  flagrant  as  to  give  Japan  the  sympathy  of  the  civilized 
world,  and  especially  of  the  world  of  finance.     This  sympathy 
must  be  deep  enough  to  induce  the  bankers  of  London  and  Paris 
to  give  to  Japan  outright  the  $1,000,000,000,  more  or  less,  neces- 
sary to  equip  this  armada  and  to  carry  on  the  war.     They  could 
not  lend  the  money,  for  to  Japan  to-day,  lending  would  be  giving. 
Japan  already  owes  more  than  $1,300,000,000,  and  to  duplicate 
this  debt  would  make  her  securities  worthless.    In  Japanese  affairs 
to-day  almost  every  other  interest  is  subordinated  to  that  of  keep- 
ing her  credit  good. 

(6)  The  coast  of  Japan  itself  is  no  better  defended  than  that 
of  California.    "It  would  be  comparatively  easy  for  an  enemy  of 
any  strength  to  land"  at  Matsushima  in  order  to  overrun  northern 
Japan,  to  land  at  unprotected   Kamakura  to  flank  and  starve 
Tokyo,  to  land  at  Sakai  to  march  on  Osaka,  and  to  isolate  Kyoto. 
In  fact,  no  nation  with  a  long  seacoast  can  ever  raise  money 
enough,  no  matter  how  grinding  the  taxation,  to  have  every  foot 
of   it  protected   from   invasion.     On   the  other  hand,  no   such 
invading  army,  in  the  heart  of  a  hostile  country,  without  a  base 
of  supplies,  could  ever  finally  escape. 

(7)  As  the  United  States  must  be  responsible  for  provocation, 
whatever  that  may  be,  why  do  we  assume  that  she  will  act  only 
on  the  defensive.    Is  not  our  monstrous  naval  expenditure  based 
on  the  theory  that  we  shall  "meet  the  enemy  in  the  middle  of  the 
sea"?    I  have  assumed,  of  course,  that  provocation  would  neces- 
sarily be  on  the  part  of  the  United  States.     It  is  not  conceivable 
that  it  should  be  otherwise.    No  other  nation  is  so  careless  as  to 
civilities,  tho  we  have  not  often  shown  real  insolence.     Any  one 
familiar  with  affairs  in  Japan  must  know  that  all  her  resources, 
and  more,  are  devoted  to  holding  on  to  what  she  now  has.    The 
occupation  of  Korea  is  a  costly  and  perilous  experiment,  perhaps 
necessary  as  a  defense  against  Russian  aggression,  but  neverthe- 
less involving  the  nation  in  many  dangers  which  unexpanded 
Japan  would  have  avoided.     The  lease  of  the  railways  of  South 
Manchuria,  with  the  city  of  Dairen  and  Port  Arthur,  further 


56  WHAT   SHALL    WE   SAY? 

greatly  extends  the  danger  line  of  Japan.  The  United  States 
receives  more  than  a  third  of  the  exports  of  Japan.  Among 
nations  with  stable  government  she  is  Japan's  nearest  neighbor 
and  most  steadfast  friend.  Whatever  the  petty  flurries  on  the 
Pacific  Coast,  the  small  rivalries  of  the  European  laborers  with 
the  rice  field  hands,  the  determination  of  the  Japanese  Govern- 
ment to  cultivate  friendship  with  us  in  every  honorable  way 
cannot  be  shaken. 

If  any  great  insurance  company  of  the  world  ever  under- 
writes against  war,  a  policy  covering  our  whole  Pacific  Coast 
could  be  had  for  half  the  present  cost  of  maintaining  the  Presidio 
of  Monterey.  Men  sometimes  speak  of  the  "dream  of  universal 
peace"  as  a  most  desirable  but  quite  impossible  ideality.  But  it 
is  a  reality  so  far  as  it  goes,  and  it  goes  farther  and  farther  every 
year.  Almost  any  nation  could  attain  it  at  once  by  substituting 
in  part  a  civil  tongue  for  its  reliance  on  army  and  navy.  The 
real  obsession  of  the  world  is  "the  dream  of  universal  war." 
This  is  the  noxious  dream  of  our  times. 


XXII. 

The  Defense  of  the  Pacific 

What  shall  we  say  to  the  demand  on  the  part  of  army  experts 
for  the  "establishment  of  three  large  mobile  forces"  for  the 
defense  of  the  Pacific  Coast:  one  at  Seattle,  one  at  San  Fran- 
cisco, and  one  near  Los  Angeles?  General  Leonard  Wood  is 
quoted  as  saying  at  Berkeley  recently:  "We  are  prepared  to 
cope  with  the  situation  so  far  as  the  bombardment  of  cities  and 
towns  is  concerned,  but  we  are  not  prepared  to  protect  our 
people  from  the  landing  of  a  hostile  force  beyond  the  reach  of 
our  coast  artillery.  The  seacoast  defense  is  useless  without  a 
mobile  army.  ,  Now,  how  are  we  to  get  men  for  this  army?  At 
present  there  are  approximately  130,000  to  140,000  men  in  the 
various  stations  of  the  army  service  in  the  United  States.  We 
have  need  of  450,000  more.  It  is  imperative  that  a  reserve  be 
established,  as  we  wish  to  train  the  citizen  to  defend  his  country 
in  case  of  war."  [If  this  figure  is  correctly  reported,  some  50,000 
of  reserves  or  militia  are  included,  besides  the  regular  army  of 
about  82,000  men.] 

Elsewhere  military  experts  have  told  us  that  if  a  large 
oriental  army  should  without  warning  sail  to  our  coasts,  we 
should  be  helpless,  without  these  three  great  forces.  Must  we 
take  all  this  seriously?  And  must  we  stand  the  expense  of  all 
these  military  visions? 

It  is  not  stated  how  large  these  mobile  forces  ought  to  be. 
It  is  hard  to  fit  figures  to  a  warrior's  dream.  Ten  thousand  men 
in  each  of  the  ports  is  an  easy  figure  on  which  to  calculate.  That 
means  another  twenty  millions  a  year  just  for  pay  and  board  and 
keep.  The  great  national  University  to  which  Washington  gave 
his  fortune  more  than  a  century  ago,  could  be  built  for  that.  We 
could  do  wonders  in  storing  and  distributing  our  flood  waters 
for  an  annual  sum  like  that.  And  there  are  other  expenses 
totaling  no  one  knows  what.  The  individual  cost  of  a  soldier 
averages  a'  out  $600  a  year, — more  than  double  the  cost  in  other 


58  WHAT   SHALL    WE   SAY? 

nations.  But  we  do  not  begrudge  this.  We  are  willing  that  the 
boys  should  be  well  cared  for.  According  to  the  Army  and  Navy 
Journal  the  total  expense  per  man,  for  food,  clothing  and  keep,  is 
about  $600  per  year.  "The  authorized  strength  of  the  army  is 
81,500.  The  amount  of  their  pay,  including  longevity  pay,  is 
$20,236,230.  For  clothing,  subsistence  and  transportation  the 
total  is  $16,047,080.  Adding  this  to  the  pay,  we  have  for  our 
army  a  grand  total  of  $36,283,140,  which  divided  by  81,500  gives 
$445.  Adding  for  what  are  known  as  'overhead  charges'  gives 
us  our  $600  rate." 

But  for  some  unexplained  reason,  this  cost  is  but  one-fourth 
of  our  total  army  expenditures  per  year.  Our  people  are  ready, 
no  doubt,  to  pay  what  is  really  necessary,  but  whatever  is  in 
excess  of  this  is  waste  or  graft.  The  total  military  cost  for 
1910-11  is  given  by  Arthur  W.  Allen  as  $162,357,000.  Dividing 
this  by  the  number  of  soldiers  (85,000)  we  have  an  annual  cost  of 
$1910  per  year  for  each.  Army  preparations  would  be  futile 
without  soldiers.  Yet  it  would  appear  that  if  the  nation  should 
discharge  them  all  the  saving  would  be  relatively  small.  The 
balance  of  $113,457,000,  besides  interest,  pensions  and  the  time 
of  those  who  might  be  employed  in  gainful  occupations,  repre- 
sents still  a  huge  military  establishment,  almost  as  large  as  the 
annual  cost  of  the  whole  regular  army  of  Great  Britain 
($138,800,000:  262,000  men),  and  as  large  as  the  combined  army 
expenses  ($122,709,000)  of  Austria  ($73,513,000:  396,000  men) 
and  Japan  ($49,196,000:  225,000  men).  Only  in  Great  Britain, 
Russia,  Germany  and  France  is  the  army  so  costly  as  in  the 
United  States  to-day,  although  all  the  principal  nations  have  a 
larger  fighting  force.  With  us  it  is  the  establishment  that  costs, 
not  the  men. 

What  shall  we  say  of  the  moral  effect  of  these  garrisons  on 
our  coast  cities  and  of  our  coast  cities  upon  them  ?  However  well 
disposed  and  well  controlled,  every  idle  garrison  of  idle  men  the 
world  over  is  in  its  degree  a  standing  menace  to  virtue,  a  standing 
target  to  vice.  At  the  best  a  standing  army  should  be  a  school, 
a  school  in  which  two  or  three  years  brings  graduation,  a  school 
in  military  drill  if  it  must  be,  but  in  industrial  training  as  well, 
to  fit  its  graduates  for  useful  civil  life.  It  should  not  be  a  life 


THE   DEFENSE   OF   THE    PACIFIC  59 

profession  for  men  debarred  from  marriage.  The  humble  cot- 
tages of  "Washerwoman's  Row"  disturb  the  neatness  of  our  army 
posts,  hence  married  soldiers  are  not  wanted.  But  the  choice 
remains — marriage  or  vice, — and  vice  goes  with  barracks  the 
world  over.  Our  own  army  officers  and  post  surgeons  have  in 
late  years  done  their  best  to  alleviate  these  conditions,  yet  the 
tendencies  remain  still  true.  The  secretary  of  war,  with  more 
emphasis  than  I  have  dared  to  use,  speaks  of  our  forty-nine  army 
posts  as  "adjoined  by  dives  and  ill  resorts  of  the  vilest  character." 
It  is  these  conditions,  he  believes,  "which  make  the  record  of  the 
army  in  this  respect  shameful  beyond  that  of  the  army  of  any 
other  civilized  nation."  This  actual  supremacy  we  may  doubt, 
for  like  conditions  produce  like  results  in  every  nation,  whenever 
idle  men  are  gathered  together  to  wait  for  the  action  that  may 
never  come. 

The  purpose  of  this  added  force  is  to  defend  the  Pacific  Coast 
from  an  "enemy's  attacks."  We  ask  again,  What  enemy?  It  is 
plain  that 'no  such  enemy  exists.  "The  large  oriental  army"  which 
shall  slip  away  from  Asia,  running  the  gauntlet  of  hundreds  of 
reporters,  American  and  European,  to  land  unsuspected  at  Mon- 
terey, could  come  from  nowhere.  There  is  no  such  possibility 
outside  of  the  land  of  dreams. 

A  hundred  thousand  men  is  perhaps  a  "large  army."  This 
would  require  an  Armada  of  more  than  fifty  ships,  sailing  six 
thousand  miles,  to  land  on  a  very  unwelcome  coast. 

The  average  yearly  cost  of  the  Japanese  soldiers  has  been 
underestimated  at  $219  per  year.  Provisions  come  higher  in 
California,  and  this  supposed  landing  would  exhaust  a  good  deal 
of  ammunition.  But  at  the  lowest  estimate  it  would  cost  very 
many  millions  in  cash  to  equip  and  start  this  army.  It  could  not 
be  done  from  funds  in  hand  in  any  oriental  nation.  It  could  not 
be  borrowed  in  London  or  Paris  or  New  York,  for  every  yen 
securable  by  the  issue  of  bonds  was  exhausted  in  the  war  with 
Russia,  for  which  Japan  has  $1,325,000,000  yet  to  pay.  Japan 
has  reached  the  limit  of  taxation.  She  can  borrow  no  more.  She 
would  not  fight  us  if  she  could.  She  could  not  fight  us  if  she 
would.  The  United  States  still  is,  as  she  always  has  been,  Japan's 
most  steadfast  friend  and  her  best  customer.  Japan's  outside 


60  WHAT    SHALL   WE   SAY? 

interests  lie  in  Asia,  all  of  them — in  Korea  and  Manchuria — and 
her  hold  on  these  regions  is  absolutely  conditioned  on  her  friend- 
ship with  the  United  States.  The  coast  of  Japan,  for  that  matter, 
is  far  more  vulnerable  than  our  own.  "A  large  army"  could  land 
almost  anywhere  in  Japan.  But,  six  thousand  miles  from  its  base 
of  supplies,  it  could  never  get  away  again.  No  coast  of  any 
nation  could  ever  be  ideally  and  perfectly  protected.  There  is 
always  room  for  more  men,  more  ships,  more  forts.  If  it  were 
perfectly  defended,  the  cost  of  protection,  and  the  presence  of 
these  thousands  on  thousands  of  idle  men  would  be  a  menace 
worse  than  an  enemy's  invasion. 

"The  Dream  of  Universal  War"  with  which  some  of  our 
military  experts  have  become  obsessed,  has  no  foundation  in  any 
needs  of  the  United  States.  It  is  a  natural  result,  perhaps,  of  the 
existence  of  great  armies  and  great  navies  maintained  in  idleness. 
The  leaders  of  these  armies  and  navies  find  in  their  dreams  a 
world  where  soldiery  is  not  play  but  action.  We  listen  to  them, 
and  we  open  our  treasuries  at  their  behest  because  their  art  is  one 
we  do  not  understand.  Everywhere  the  people's  money  is  spent 
as  money  was  never  spent  before  on  the  "great  illusion," — that  of 
ideal  defense  against  imaginary  dangers. 


XXIII. 

Pearl  Harbor 

What  shall  we  say  of  Pearl  Harbor,  our  new  stronghold  of  the 
sea? 

We  have  been  told  that  Hawaii  has  dangers  both  within  and 
without.  As  a  coaling  station  it  commands  the  Pacific.  As  a 
community  it  is  commanded  by  Japan.  There  are  nearly  four 
Japanese  to  every  Caucasian  on  the  islands.  This  is  no  surprise, 
for  the  same  relation  existed  when  their  white  rulers  turned  these 
islands  over  to  us.  One  military  expert  soberly  declares  that  there 
are  35,000  Japanese  ex-soldiers  on  the  islands,  each  ready  to  rise 
at  a  signal  from  home.  This  we  know  is  not  true.  There  are  not 
35,000  ex-soldiers  in  Hawaii,  nor  any  other  number  worth  con- 
sidering. If  there  were,  it  would  signify  nothing,  as  they  have 
neither  money  nor  arms  nor  officers,  nor  any  understanding  with 
the  Japanese  government.  They  are  former  rice-field  hands,  now 
laborers  on  the  sugar  plantations.  The  mutual  relations  of  the 
many  races  in  Hawaii  are  singularly  amiable.  Honolulu  is  the 
cross-roads  of  the  greatest  ocean.  All  races  meet  there  in  the 
most  cosmopolitan  of  societies.  Mutual  knowledge  breeds  mutual 
respect.  The  ordinary  police  of  the  most  peaceable  of  towns 
suffices  for  all  internal  defense  of  Honolulu.  Moreover,  whatever 
the  census  may  show,  the  people  are  all,  of  choice,  American : 
English,  German,  Portuguese,  Chinese,  Japanese,  Hawaiians  even. 
There  is  no  doubt  of  that. 

But  what  of  the  other  menace  from  without?  Do  not  ori- 
ental nations  look  with  envious  eyes  on  our  Gibraltar  of  the 
Pacific?  Surely,  they  need  not  worry  us.  What  they  might  do 
if  they  could,  is  only  a  matter  of  conjecture.  What  they  cannot 
do  if  they  would  is  a  matter  of  simple  mathematics.  Once  in  a 
century  a  nation  can  fight  as  Japan  fought  in  Manchuria.  That 
was  the  last  time.  Before  the  next  century  comes,  the  combined 
work  of  commerce,  civilization  and  finance  will  put  an  end  to 
international  struggles.  One  impulse  in  the  recent  wars  in 


62  WHAT    SHALL    WE   SAY? 

Europe  has  been  the  certainty  that  the  close  season  for  war  is 
soon  coming  on.  Surely  our  fortifications  about  Honolulu  and 
Pearl  Harbor  would  prove  ample  as  defense  were  there  anywhere 
an  enemy. 

Our  secretary  of  war,  the  least  exacting  of  our  military 
experts,  speaks  of  the  great  strategic  importance  of  Pearl  Har- 
bor, of  more  value  for  "the  protection  of  the  entire  Pacific 
coast  from  attack  than  any  one  of  the  positions  on  that  coast 
now  so  strongly  fortified.  No  naval  enemy  could  make  a  seri- 
ous effective  attack  upon  any  portion  of  the  American  Pacific 
Coast  unless  it  had  first  reduced  the  position  at  Oahu,  threatening 
its  flank." 

This  is  doubtless  perfectly  true ;  but  vastly  more  important 
is  the  fact  that  there  is  no  such  enemy,  and  there  can  be  none. 
The  enemy's  flank  is  already  turned.  It  is  turned  by  the  crushing 
debt  of  past  war  and  by  the  grinding  residue  of  present  taxation. 
It  is  turned  by  the  friendship  and  justice  of  civilized  nations,  by 
the  interrelations  of  business,  by  the  great  banker's  hatred  for 
war  and  waste.  Magnificent  as  is  the  naval '  station  at  Pearl 
Harbor,  impregnable  as  is  its  Gibraltar-like  defense,  these  islands 
lie  in  the  zone  of  peace.  They  are  centres  of  no  present  struggles, 
no  future  outbreaks  of  ferocity.  To  the  student  of  world  affairs, 
their  people  of  many  races  live  in  noble  harmony,  and  an  armed 
garrison  is  no  more  needed  there  than  in  Kokomo  or  Kalamazoo. 

Japan  has  earned  the  right  to  be  let  alone,  while  she  works 
out  her  own  distressing  problems  of  tax  and  debt  and  malemploy- 
ment  of  men,  all  these  with  their  necessary  results  in  the  rising 
cost  of  living. 

When  the  writer  was  in  Japan  not  long  since,  an  editor  came 
from  Osaka  to  meet  him  at  Nagoya  to  ask  the  cause  of  the  rise 
in  the  cost  of  living  in  Osaka.  Why  is  it  that  the  farmer  about 
the  Inland  Sea  of  Japan  can  no  longer  afford  to  eat  the  rice  he 
raises,  but  must  sell  it  to  buy  cheaper  rice,  meanwhile  living  on 
three-quarter  rations?  He  cannot  use  his  own  crop,  because  he 
must  sell  it  to  pay  his  taxes,  that  his  nation  "may  keep  her  place 
among  the  Great  Powers  of  the  World." 

In  the  Japanese  journal  Shin  Nihon,  Mr.  Nagai  Ryutaro 
presents  the  case  of  these  people ;  an  "Appeal  in  behalf  of  those 


PEARL    HARBOR  63 

unable  to  appeal" :  "Thousands  upon  thousands  of  our  compat- 
riots," says  Ryutaro,  "are  on  the  verge  of  starvation.  'What 
little  value  is  set  on  human  life !'  Mencius  once  asked  King  Yeh 
of  Liang  (China),  'Is  there  any  difference  between  killing  men 
by  the  sword  and  by  means  of  government?'  'None,'  replied  the 
King.  If  future  historians  accuse  modern  statesmen  of  the 
slaughter  of  people  by  maladministration,  what  grounds  will  there 
be  to  deny  the  charge?  I  appeal  on  behalf  of  those  who  are 
unable  to  appeal !" 


XXIV. 
Magdalena  Bay 

What  shall  we  say  of  the  Magdalena  Bay  incident,  a  pure 
hoax  at  best,  and  of  its  treatment  by  the  American  press  ? 

Here  is  the  story  as  told  in  headlines  of  leading  newspapers 
in  New  York: 

JAPAN   IN  MEXICO   STIRS   SENATE.     ULTIMATUM   SENT  TO 
MADERO.     SENATOR  LODGE  ASKS   PRESIDENT   FOR   IN- 
FORMATION ON  THE  JAPANESE  PLAN  TO  PUT  A  BIG 
COLONY  ON  MAGDALENA  BAY.     IN  SECRET  NOTE 
A    YEAR    AGO     GREAT     BRITAIN     DEMANDED 
THAT     U.     S.   STOP     ACTIVITIES     OF     THE 
MIKADO'S    GOVERNMENT. 

Alarmed  by  the  plan  of  Japan  to  obtain  an  official  foothold  along  Magdalena 
Bay,  where  she  will  be  a  direct  menace  to  the  United  States, 
Senator  Henry  Cabot  Lodge  to-day  introduced  a  resolution  calling 
on  the  President  for  all  information  in  the  possession  of  the 
Government  relating  to  the  purchase  of  the  land  in  that  vicinity  by 
the  Japanese  Goverment  or  by  a  Japanese  Company.  The  resolu- 
tion was  adopted. 

WARNING  TO  JAPAN  ON  MAGDALENA  BAY.    CABINET  MEM- 
BERS   BELIEVE   TAFT'S   REPLY   TO   LODGE   WILL   END 
HER  SCHEMINGS.     STEAMSHIP  LINE  AS  A  CLOAK. 
POTENTIAL    GRAVITY    OF    THE    SITUATION 
NOW    KNOWN.      LAND    LONG    OWNED    BY 
AMERICANS  SOUGHT. 

Japan's  designs  against  U.  S.  to  be  revealed  by  inquiry  under  Lodge's 
resolution.  Open  charge  of  bad  faith  in  acquiring  foothold  in 
Magdalena  Bay  based  on  information  that  Nippon  government  is 
backing  the  venture.  Mikado  is  determined  to  test  the  Monroe 
doctrine  in  Mexico.  Movements  of  Japs  to  Magdalena  began 
immediately  after  Diaz  cancelled  arrangement  with  the  U.  S.  for 
use  of  the  place.  Engineers  recently  prepared  plans  for  a  Japanese 
city. 

Our  old  friend,  the  Japanese  "War  Scare,"  as  a  friend  of  adequate 
Naval  increase.  The  Herald  might  be  expected  to  be  tempted  to 
join  the  chorus  of  the  "The  War  Scare"  which  is  sure  to  be  raised 


MAGDALENA    BAY  65 

over  the  reports  that  the  Japanese  have  made  arrangement  with  the 
Mexican  Government  for  a  naval  base  on  Magdalena  Bay,  but  as 
an  enemy  of  sham  and  a  promoter  of  good  international  relations 
it  is  compelled  to  say  bluntly  that  the  whole  matter  is  an  attenuated 
fraud,  with  its  hair  a  little  thinner  and  its  beard  a  little  whiter  than 
when  it  made  its  last  appearance,  just  a  trifle  more  than  a  year  ago. 
There  is  always  some  ulterior  motive  connected  with  the  revival  of 
this  absurd  report.  Those  who  foster  it  seem  to  imagine  that  it 
might  influence  this  country  to  intervene  in  Mexico.  The  theory  is 
that  unless  the  United  States  takes  and  annexes  Mexico  the  Japanese 
will  get  such  a  foothold  before  the  Panama  Canal  is  opened  that 
this  country  will  have  to  fight  the  armies  of  Japan  just  across  the 
Rio  Grande.  Not  even  a  necessary  evil.  The' last  time  this  precious 
imposition  was  fostered  by  the  interests  that  desired  intervention, 
General  Madero  was  leading  a  revolution  against  President  Diaz. 
Then  the  Japanese  naval  base  was  to  be  in  the  Bay  of  Todos  Santos, 
in  Lower  California.  The  yarn  went  clear  around  the  world,  and 
was  scotched  and  killed  by  the  Herald,  which  interviewed  the  most 
prominent  statesmen  of  Japan.  It  was  buried  by  President  Taft 
on  March  25th,  concluding  with  the  statement,  "I  am  most  happy  to 
be  able  to  reciprocate  those  assurances."  It  is  not  necessary  to  get 
up  a  Japanese  "war  scare"  to  show  the  country  how  its  interests 
are  being  imperilled  by  the  action  of  the  house  democrats  in  reject- 
ing any  battleships  increase  this  year.  The  country  knows  that 
unless  we  have  an  adequate  navy  any  dream  of  this  sort  that  any 
coterie  of  adventurers  might  invent  could  come  true. 
New  warning  to  the  world  and  to  Japan.  President  will  restate  our 
determination  to  enforce  Monroe  doctrine.  Hands  off  the  hemi- 
sphere. Taft's  reply  to  the  Lodge  resolution  will  thwart  Magda- 
lena bay  negotiations. 

Magdalena  bay  quest  in  senate.  President  asked  to  tell  what  he  knows 
of  Japan's  intentions.  Lodge  pushes  inquiry.  Recent  reports  have 
caused  revival  of  coaling  station  story.  Denials  by  Mexico.  In- 
formation that  a  steamship  company  first  seeks  a  foothold.  Move 
thought  a  cloak.  No  advantage  in  the  bay  for  commercial  vessels, 
but  ideal  for  warships. 

Japs  tried  to  buy  Magdalena  bay  land  of  Yankees  now  holding  it.  Amer- 
ican owners  dickered  with  Orientals  who  wished  to  use  fishing 
concessions,  found  colony  of  Japanese  laborers,  and  form  Japan- 
ese-American steamship  line.  President  will  say  in  his  reply  to 
senate  resolution  U.  S.  State  department  advised  against  sale.  Pro- 
posed scheme  in  which  Japanese  government  did  not  appear,  fell 
through.  This  country  could  get  land  but  doesn't  want  it,  as 
Mexico  won't  cede  sovereignty.  The  strip  of  land  is  five  hundred 
miles  long  and  sixteen  wide. 


66  WHAT   SHALL    WE   SAY? 

Find  evidence  of  Japan-Mexico  deal.  Commercial  company  seeks  2,000,000 
acres  on  Magdalena  Bay.  Ideal  coaling  station.  Site  has  little  value 
except  for  naval  purposes — Lodge  resolution  goes  to  State  Depart- 
ment. Navy's  head  sees  warning  in  issue.  "This  agitation  over 
coaling  stations  and  the  Magdalena  Bay  affair  would  not  excite  so 
much  apprehension  if  the  prospects  were  good  of  keeping  up  a 
strong  navy  in  the  future." — George  von  L.  Meyer,  Secretary  of  the 
Navy. 

Magdalena  Bay  story  "merest  buncombe,"  says  chairman  Sulzer  of  the 
Foreign  Affairs  Committee  of  the  House.  No  foundation  in  fact. 
Taft's  reply  to  the  Lodge  resolution  will  be  reassuring  in  regard  to 
our  relations  with  Japan. 

Japan's  premier  tells  the  Times  there  is  no  Magdalena  bay  incident. 
Fishing  rights  have  been  obtained  by  the  Oriental  Whaling  Com- 
pany of  Japan.  Far  from  Magdalena  bay.  Not  in  Lower  Cali- 
fornia at  all,  but  along  750  miles  of  the  mainland.  Others  have 
same  rights.  Senators  and  members  of  house  deeply  impressed  by 
the  message.  Call  plot  story  exploded.  Senator  Lodge  is  gratified 
with  statement  that  seems  to  explain.  Marquis  Saionji's  state- 
ment to  the  Times. 

The  New  York  Times  having  invited  Marquis  Saionji,  Prime  Minister  of 
Japan,  to  explain  the  reports  that  Japan  was  negotiating  for  a  naval 
base  at  Magdalena  Bay,  in  the  Mexican  territory  of  Lower  Cali- 
fornia, Marquis  Saionji  cabled  yesterday  a  reply  to  the  Japanese 
Ambassador  in  Washington,  by  whom  it  was  delivered  to  the 
Times.  Marquis  Saionji  says  there  have  been  no  negotiations  for 
Magdalena  Bay,  but  the  Oriental  Whaling  Company  of  Japan 
acquired  fishing  rights,  in  common  with  citizens  and  subjects  of 
other  countries,  not  at  Magdalena  Bay,  but  on  the  mainland  of 
Mexico,  along  a  strip  of  coast  750  miles  long  between  the  states  of 
Tepic  and  Oaxaca. 

This  Magdalena  Bay  is  a  hamlet  on  the  shore  of  the  desert 
part  of  Lower  California.  Its  roadstead  is  an  excellent  harbor, 
well  suited,  no  doubt,  for  a  coaling  station  if  Mexico  had  any 
need  of  such  stations.  The  land  about  it  is  worthless,  the  region 
being  virtually  rainless.  Its  empty  sand  dunes  fit  it  well  for  target 
practice,  although  the  shock  of  big  guns  has  killed  its  shell-fish 
on  the  bottom.  On  one  island  is  a  village  of  one  hundred  people, 
clustered  about  a  crab  and  turtle  cannery  owned  in  Los  Angeles. 
The  foreman  of  the  cannery  and  five  crab-catchers  are  Japanese. 
On  another  island  is  a  brackish  spring  rising  among  the  sand 
dunes,  the  only  available  water  for  scores  of  miles. 


MAGDALEN  A    BAY  / 

Government  lands  and  everything  else  available  for  exploita- 
tion in  Mexico  has  been  parcelled  out  in  concessions,  these  mostly 
held  by  foreigners.  The  fishing  concession  of  Lower  California 
is  held  by  a  Mexican  resident  of  Los  Angeles.  Such  capital  as 
is  associated  with  him  in  this  concession  is  French.  An  option 
on  the  desert  land  concession  about  the  Bay  is  held  in  the  United 
States.  No  attempt  has  been  made  by  the  Japanese  government, 
nor  by  any  Japanese  capitalist,  syndicate  or  corporation  to  secure 
anything  in  Lower  California.  One  Japanese  gentleman  without 
capital  and  representing  nobody  once  went  down  to  look  at 
Magdalena  Bay,  and  that  is  all.  Other  Japanese  have  examined 
the  fishing  concessions  below  Tepic  and  have  abandoned  the 
proposition  as  not  worth  while. 

What  shall  we  say  of  the  newspapers?  Only  this,  perhaps: 
our  country  has  no  monopoly  of  spurious  news.  Great  London 
journals  may  pervert  the  truth  with  more  dignity ;  great  German 
journals  may  obscure  it  with  more  ponderosity;  great  French 
journals  may  twist  it  with  more  vivacity.  But  crooked  journalism 
is  crooked  journalism  the  world  over.  There  may  be  some  choice 
as  to  methods,  but  not  much  as  to  motive  or  result. 


XXV. 
The  Samoan  Precedent 

What  shall  we  say  of  our  operations  in  Nicaragua?  No  one 
seems  to  know.  Our  marines  have  fought  bravely  against  some- 
body, and  good  men  have  lost  their  lives.  The  Department  of 
State  gives  no  clear  explanation,  but  it  is  stated  in  the  press  that 
it  finds  a  precedent  in  our  intervention  in  German  Samoa  in  the 
year  1899. 

It  may  be  remembered  that  the  natives  in  Apia  were  "doing 
politics"  rather  warmly,  but  in  their  own  fashion,  when,  without 
orders  and  on  their  own  initiative,  a  British  and  an  American 
warship  in  the  harbor  began  to  shell  the  town.  The  single 
American  property  owner  on  the  beach,  Mr.  H.  J.  Moors,  told  nit, 
that  he  supposed  that  the  ships  were  firing  salutes  until  the  shells 
fell  about  his  hotel.  He  had  asked  for  no  intervention  or  protec- 
tion. Afterwards  marines  were  landed  from  both  ships,  and  these, 
according  to  the  record,  "fought  shoulder  to  shoulder  against  a 
savage  foe."  The  "savage  foe"  was  led  by  the  genial  and  pious 
and,  in  his  degree,  scholarly  Mata'afa.  The  machine  gun  of  the 
invaders  became  "jammed,"  and  some  of  the  men  were  killed. 
One  of  the  "savages"  showed  me  the  road  the  invaders  took  while 
Mata'afa's  men  were  hidden  in  the  "bush"  along  side.  They 
could  have  killed  all  the  marines  except  for  the  orders  of  their 
chief.  Afterwards  this  matter  of  "armed  intervention"  was 
brought  before  the  king  of  Sweden  as  arbitrator,  and  it  was 
decreed  that  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  are  "responsible 
for  the  loss  caused  by  their  military  action."  The  decision  assert- 
ed the  principle  that  a  nation  "has  no  right  to  land  troops  in  order 
to  preserve  the  property  or  the  lives  of  her  nationals."  The 
United  States  agreed  to  pay  the  damages  assessed,  at  the  same 
time  refusing  to  recognize  the  principle  involved.  In  any  event, 
probably  this  incident  would  serve  better  as  a  warning  than  as  a 
precedent. 


XXVI. 
Japanese  Immigration 

What  shall  we  say  of  Japanese  Immigration?  Only  this: 
There  is  no  problem  now,  and  if  we  let  well  enough  alone  there 
will  be  no  problem  in  the  future. 

Most  of  us  in  California  hope  to  avoid  a  racial  stratification  of 
any  sort  among  our  people.  Least  of  all  do  we  want  a  body  of 
laborers,  Asiatic  because  they  are  underpaid  and  underpaid  be- 
cause they  are  Asiatic.  Most  of  those  in  Japan  who  think  upon 
the  subject  do  not  want  the  rice-field  hands  to  go  where  they  are 
not  wanted,  to  go  where  their  presence  produces  economic  dis- 
turbances, or  to  go  anywhere  in  such  numbers  that  other  people 
judge  all  their  countrymen  by  them. 

For  all  these  reasons,  representatives  of  the  two  nations  met 
in  1907,  on  the  "gentlemen's  agreement,"  that  no  Japanese  lab- 
orers should  be  granted  passports  for  America,  and  that  no  legis- 
lation humiliating  to  Japan  should  be  favorably  considered  at 
Washington.  This  "gentlemen's  agreement"  has  been  loyally 
and  rigidly  kept  by  the  Japanese  foreign  office :  too  rigidly  it  may 
be,  for  even  students  from  Japan  bound  for  American  univer- 
sities, the  best  bond  of  peace  between  the  two  countries,  find  it 
increasingly  hard  to  get  their  passports.  The  Japanese  con- 
strue the  word  America  in  a  broad  sense,  for  since  1907  the  emi- 
gration of  laborers  has-been  debarred  from  Canada  and  Mexico 
as  well  as  from  the  Pacific  states  and  from  Hawaii. 

Sometime  in  the  long  future  our  country  may  be  wise  enough 
to  frame  Immigration  acts,  which  shall  treat  all  nations  of  the 
world  alike.  This  problem,  most  difficult  at  the  best,  cannot  be 
settled  off  hand  nor  can  it  be  settled  now.  Perhaps  sometime  we 
may  see  our  way  to  admit  skilled  laborers  only,  from  any  region, 
and  only  when  accompanied  by  their  families.  But  no  final  ad- 
justment is  possible  now;  and  all  the  Japanese  ask  for  is  to  be 
spared  the  humiliation  involved  in  any  scheme  for  the  exclusion 
of  Asiatics  as  Asiatics.  This  is  a  matter  of  national  sensitiveness 


7O  WHAT    SHALL    WE    SAY? 

to  a  highly  cultivated  and  sensitive  people ;  and  needlessly  to  hurt 
such  a  nation  is  to  hurt  ourselves.  For  the  lines  of  commerce  run 
in  grooves  of  international  friendliness.  An  indirect  exclusion  act, 
as  of  races  not  eligible  for  citizenship,  is  more  humiliating  than  a 
direct  act  would  be.  It  implies  that  the  Japanese  cannot  read  be- 
tween the  lines.  Exclusion  from  citizenship,  for  which  discrimi- 
nation no  adequate  cause  exists,  is  of  the  nature  of  insult  in  itself. 
To  be  shut  out  because  they  have  been  insulted  once  adds  doubly 
to  a  humiliation  they  have  no  power  to  resent,  but  which  they 
hope  their  nearest  friend  among  the  nations  will  not  offer  them. 

If  an  exclusion  act  were  necessary  in  our  interest  or  our  own 
protection,  it  might  be  a  painful  alternative.  But  there  is  no  need 
for  any  action  whatever. 

Who  is  there  who  would  wish  to  break  the  "gentlemen's  agree- 
ment" in  order  to  substitute  an  "exclusion  act"  ?  Not  the  laborers 
of  California  who  fear  Japanese  competition,  for  such  exclusion 
is  now  perfectly  accomplished.  To  throw  the  matter  again  into 
international  diplomacy  would  end  in  less  perfect  restriction  than 
we  have  now.  For  restriction  can  be  made  most  effective  when 
the  Japanese  foreign  office  itself  undertakes  it.  The  people  of  the 
Pacific  states,  who  fear  lest  they  be  overrun  with  Japanese  labor- 
ers, have  no  need  to  ask  for  further  legislation,  for  Japanese  labor- 
ers cannot  come  while  this  "gentlemen's  agreement"  stands. 

In  the  end  if  we  keep  up  futile  agitation,  a  disgusted  nation 
will  be  likely  to  remove  all  barriers,  letting  West  meet  East  where- 
ever  it  will,  each  taking  its  own  chances. 


XXVII. 
The  Old-Age  Pension 

What  shall  we  say  of  the  Old-Age  Pension  as  a  wise  charity  of 
the  State  ? 

We  shall  go  back  to  the  fundamental  principle  of  democracy. 
This  is  equality  before  the  law.  It  is  the  elimination  of  privilege 
wherever  found,  of  the  rich  or  of  the  poor,  all  grants  of  some- 
thing for  nothing,  all  pay  without  an  equivalent  service.  The 
function  of  the  state  is  to  provide  first  for  justice, — that  is  equal- 
ity before  the  law — the  square  deal  among  men  and  interests.  Its 
next  duty  is  to  provide  for  all  things  needed  by  the  people  which 
must  be  in  public  rather  than  in  private  hands.  Schools,  armies, 
roads,  inspection  of  banks,  ships,  corporations  come  under  this 
head,  as  also  conservation,  sanitation,  and  many  other  things  as 
yet  imperfectly  realized,  which  must  come  with  time  through  the 
state ;  that  is,  through  compulsory  combined  effort,  because  no 
other  agency  is  possible. 

But  the  state  is  only  a  plan  of  mutual  assessment.  It  cannot 
be  kind  or  charitable  or  paternal  except  at  our  own  expense.  It 
is  just  as  cheap  and  more  effective  for  us  as  citizens  to  be  fra- 
ternal. To  lean  too  heavily  on  the  state  means  heavy  assessments 
on  its  stockholders  and  too  heavy  taxes  on  its  people,  and  by  this 
means  many  states  are  perilously  near  bankruptcy.  Or  what  is 
worse,  as  the  incidence  of  taxation  is  easily  shifted  by  wealth  to  be 
a  burden  on  industry,  a  state  reaches  the  condition  when  a  few 
are  very  rich  while  the  mass  of  its  people  are  helpless. 

The  wealth  of  our  own  nation  does  not  rest  on  its  greatr 
sweep  of  prairies,  its  mines  or  its  commerce.  It  rests  primarily 
on  the  fact  that  ''America  means  opportunity."  Our  nation  has 
not  always  been  true  to  the  principles  of  its  fathers,  but  it  has  not 
wholly  forgotten  them.  Its  free  schools  and  its  absence  of  privi- 
lege have  made  it  possible  for  each  of  its  children  to  make  the 
most  of  the  talents  with  which  they  are  born. 

Its  people  have  not  been  crushed  by  taxation,  by  caste,  nor 


72  WHAT   SHALL    WE    SAY? 

worn  out  by  losing  their  strongest  on  the  field  of  battle.  The 
young  men  grow  up  to  feel  that  "the  world  is  their  oyster,"  and 
it  is  for  them  and  for  them  alone  to  find  means  to  open  it.  The 
democracy  of  America  has  no  masters  save  of  its  own  creation, 
and  the  power  that  made  these  is  adequate  to  set  them  aside. 

The  democracy  of  England  has  the  handicap  of  ages  of  privi- 
lege. Inequality  before  the  law  is  the  foundation  of  British 
polity.  England  chooses  lords  and  magnates  and  tyrants  long  be- 
fore they  are  born.  They  belong  to  her  system  of  privilege  by 
which  cities  like  Westminster,  Sheffield,  Devonport,  Arundel,  were 
held,  virtually  tax-free,  by  men  whose  ancestors  received  their  land 
as  royal  gifts  or  bought  them  as  cow-pastures.  That  the  rich  have 
special  privileges,  is  the  justification  for  special  privilege  to  the 
poor,  all  privilege  being  granted  at  the  expense  of  industry. 

The  "old-age  pension"  has  been  justly  compared  to  the  free 
pass  homeward  granted  to  the  human  wrecks  who  have  lost  their 
all  in  the  gambling  rooms  of  Monte  Carlo.  It  is  the  shilling  given 
to  the  man  run  over  by  my  lord's  automobile. 

In  a  better  system  he  would  not  have  been  run  over.  He  would 
not  have  lost  his  money  in  a  vile  resort.  He  would  not  hav_' 
needed  an  outside  pittance  to  carry  him  through  old  age. 

But  the  facts  in  England  remain.  The  best  of  her  workers 
have  died  in  her  wars,  leaving  a  weaker  stock  to  breed  from. 
These  have  grown  up  unskilled,  in  default  of  the  schools  that 
make  men  strong.  They  have  grown  up  in  the  atmosphere  of  the 
public  house,  sodden  with  lust  and  beer  and  whiskey.  They  have 
lost  the  opportunity  that  should  be  theirs,  and  at  the  end  their 
fellows  must  be  taxed  to  feed  them.  The  tragedy  of  the  East 
End  of  London  is  no  normal  part  of  the  tragedy  of  Life.  It  is 
no  part  of  the  normal  America.  It  is  no  part  of  a  nation  which 
has  given  opportunity.  The  flag  of  freedom  never  floated  over 
a  nation  of  deadheads,  be  they  rich  or  poor. 

But  for  us  in  a  new  country,  fresh,  unspoiled,  full  of  life 
and  hope,  it  is  for  us  to  hold  our  government  to  its  rigid  purpose, 
to  develop  opportunity  by  the  elimination  of  privilege,  to  lean  not 
on  government  but  on  ourselves,  and  to  aid  by  fraternal  giving 
those  who  have  fallen  in  the  press;  not  to  weaken  by  unearned 
money  those  who  are  falling  but  who  can  be  made  to  stand.  The 


OLD-AGE    PENSION.  73 

way  of  the  transgressor  is  hard  and  we  would  not  make  it  easier 
if  we  could ;  we  could  not  if  we  would.  To  give  a  man  a  chance 
to  rise,  is  to  allow  him  also  the  choice  to  fall. 

"The  old-age  pension"  is,  so  far  as  it  goes,  a  confession  of 
failure  of  democracy.  Except  as  a  measure  of  emergency,  its  real 
purpose  in  England,  it  has  no  justification  in  the  public  welfare. 
The  old-age  pension  is  part  of  the  dark  shadow  cast  over  Europe 
by  the  growth  of  the  gigantic  delusion  of  "National  Defense." 
Clean  up  the  social  atmosphere,  restore  to  the  people  what  is 
rightfully  theirs,  and  they  will  care,  rare  accidents  excepted,  for 
their  own  old  age. 


XXVIII. 

Taxing  the  Cost  of  Living 

The  rise  in  cost  of  articles  of  necessity  began  about  1897.  It 
is  world-wide,  rather  greater  in  high  tariff  countries,  because  of 
the  shelter  and  leverage  offered  by  protection.  In  general,  this 
rise  is  about  fifty  per  cent ;  the  fall  in  the  purchasing  power  of 
gold  about  the  same.  It  is  enhanced  and  aggravated  in  different 
countries  by  special  conditions.  Of  these  several  have  been  des- 
cribed in  the  United  States  and  others  in  other  nations.  These 
elements  are  not  causes  of  the  rising  cost  of  living,  but  modifying 
circumstances.  According  to  Sauerbeck,  the  "Englishman's  dol- 
lar" of  1897  is  now  worth  seventy-eight  cents,  the  "American  dol- 
lar" but  seventy.  Index  tables  of  wholesale  prices  of  many  articles 
leave  the  American  dollar  of  1913  as  worth  sixty-one  cents  in  the 
values  of  1897.  Of  actual  causes  leading  toward  this  change  three 
may  be  recognized : 

1.  The  great  increase  in  the  world's  stock  of  gold  (from  about 
$7,500,000,000  to  about  $11,000,000,000).    This  increase  has  now 
passed  its  climax.     As  the  amount  of  gold  at  the  best  is  very 
small   for  the  credit  resting  on   it,  the  bonded  war   debt  and 
municipal  debt  of  civilized  countries  exceeding  $60,000,000,000,  it 
is  believed  that  the  importance  of  this  factor  is  greatly  exagger- 
ated.   Including  bonds  of  private  corporations,  there  are  upwards 
of  $150,000,000,000  in  evidences  of  debt  in  circulation  in  Europe. 
It  is,  however,  an  element  of  unknown  importance  in  determining 
the  value  of  gold  as  stated  in  terms  of  other  products  of  labor  and 
capital.     In  so  far  as  this  goes,  it  is  a  cheapening  of  the  actual 
value  of  gold. 

2.  The  improvement  of  the  processes  by  which  gold  is  ex- 
tracted and  the  consequent  cheapening  of  gold  as  measured  in 
terms  of  labor.     The  cyanide  process  has  made  it  profitable  to 
work  low  grade  ores  and  old  dumps,  and  a  new  dollar  obtained 
from  a  gold  mine  costs  in  labor  and  capital  much  less  than  the 
old  dollars  cost. 


TAXING   THE    COST   OF    LIVING  75 

Whatever  value  may  be  assigned  to  this  factor,  its  influence  is 
long  since  spent.  It  is  not  likely  that  the  gold  market  will  be  soon 
disturbed  again  by  new  discoveries  of  mines  or  by  new  processes. 
So  far  as  it  goes,  it  means  an  actual  cheapening  of  the  value  of 
gold. 

3.  The  increase  of  taxation  the  world  over,  due  to  (i)  the 
waste  of  actual  war,  (2)  the  extension  of  armies  and  navies,  and 
(3)  the  increase  by  one  hundred  to  two  hundred  per  cent  of  munic- 
ipal and  other  local  indebtedness  of  the  world.  "Instead  of  living 
beyond  our  means,  we  are  living  beyond  the  means  of  the  fourth 
generation."  These  extra  taxes  correspond  to  excise  duties. 
They  are  laid  more  or  less  directly  on  the  industries  of  the  nations, 
and  their  effect  is  to  increase  the  selling  price  of  products.  In 
so  far  as  this  influence  goes  it  is  not  a  cheapening  of  gold,  but 
the  pushing  up,  through  taxation,  of  other  values. 

Roughly  speaking,  the  taxes  of  the  world  have  been  doubled 
since  1897.  Supported  by  these  additional  taxes,  millions  of  men 
have  been  drawn  from  productive  labor.  In  191 1  the  bonded  debt 
of  the  world  for  past  expenditures  (pawn  checks  for  wars  already 
fought)  amounted  to  $37,000,000,000.  The  annual  interest 
charges  on  this  was  over  $1,400,000,000.  The  annual  naval  ex- 
pense of  the  seven  most  "progressive" — that  is,  most  wasteful — 
nations  rose  from  about  $250,000,000  in  1897  to  $629,000,000  in 
1911.  The  total  military  expenses  of  these  same  nations  doubled 
in  this  time,  with  a  correspnding  withdrawal  of  men  from  industry 
to  militarism.  Meanwhile,  municipal  and  other  local  debts  every- 
where are  two  or  three  times  as  great  as  in  1897.  For  example, 
San  Francisco  had  in  1902  a  budget  of  $6,500,000  annually.  For 
1913  this  budget  is  $15,000,000.  The  valuation  of  city  property 
was  in  1902,  $413,000,000.  It  is  now  $510,000,000.  It  is  es- 
timated that  in  1921  the  valuation  will  be  $753,000,000,  the  tax 
$27,000,000. 

The  bonded  debt  of  British  cities  rose  from  $1,500,000,000  in 
1897  to  $3,800,000,000  in  1912.  A  similar  increase  is  seen  in  Ger- 
many and  France.  In  the  United  States  the  total  of  state  and1 
local  taxes  has  risen  from  $1,090,000,000  in  1901  to  $2,505,- 
000,000  in  1911.  The  fact  that  these  sums  are  raised  by  indirect 
taxation  makes  the  burden  the  greater.  They  must  be  paid  in 


76  WHAT    SHALL    WE    SAY? 

the  increased  price  of  commodities, — in  other  words  by  a  rising 
cost  of  living.  All  taxes,  however  levied,  constitute  a  confiscation 
of  private  property  for  public  purposes.  A  nation  is  a  huge  cor- 
poration which  differs  from  other  corporations  in  its  power  to 
levy  assessments  without  limit  on  its  bondholders.  The  dealer 
accustomed  to  a  certain  percentage  of  profit,  adds  his  tax  burden 
to  this  percentage.  In  doing  so  he  must  lower  his  purchase  price 
or  raise  his  selling  price.  What  he  does  or  can  do  depends  on 
the  relative  power  of  resistance  of  producer,  dealer  and  consumer. 
The  stress  and  incidence  of  taxation  falls  on  the  less  resistant 
elements.  Any  one  of  the  three  groups  may  combine  to  throw  off 
this  stress.  The  dealers  are  more  often  successful  in  this.  As 
production  is  more  or  less  limited,  the  consumer  is  the  weakest 
of  the  three  groups,  and  finally  bears  most  of  the  burden.  Some 
part  of  the  consuming  group  being  also  producers  may  roll  the 
burden  back,  but  in  any  case  an  increase  of  taxation  is  a  burden 
on  the  people,  and  they  can  only  shift  it  among  themselves.  There 
is  no  foreigner  they  can  plunder  to  make  their  losses  good. 

As  each  dollar  must  bear  the  tax  burden,  its  value  is  dimin- 
ished. Taxation  lowers  the  purchasing  power  of  money.  As  the 
purchasing  power  is  likely  to  fall  farther  in  the  future,  the  rate 
of  interest  rises.  Bonds  will  be  paid  at  their  maturity  in  still 
cheaper  dollars.  Hence  the  fall  in  value  the  world  over  of  "gilt- 
edged  bonds." 

In  this  connection  it  may  be  noted  that  the  price  of  most  sta- 
ble and  staple  commodities  is  fixed  in  London,  the  clearing  house 
of  the  world  trade.  Our  exports  have,  in  general,  in  New  York 
the  London  value  minus  the  cost  of  handling.  Imports  have  the 
London  value  with  the  addition  of  the  cost  of  handling  and 
the  tax  on  imports.  The  value  of  non-exportable  or  perishable 
goods  depends  on  local  conditions,  and  is  subject  to  much  greater 
fluctuations.  Thus  potatoes  are  now  very  dear  in  California,  and 
onions  are  excessively  cheap.  But  this  is  a  local  matter  of  supply 
and  demand. 

I  am  a  dealer,  let  us  say,  in  Palo  Alto.  I  allow  a  margin  of 
fifteen  per  cent  gross  profit  on  my  dealings.  I  have  some  taxable 
property  and  I  feed  my  family.  My  taxes,  direct  and  indirect, 
amount  to  $500.  With  time  my  government,  municipal,  state  and 


TAXING   THE    COST   OF    LIVING  77 

national  taxes  raise  this  tax  to  $1,200.  I  must  increase  my  profits 
by  $700.  I  allow  a  margin  of  twenty-five  per  cent  on  my  trans- 
actions. Those  from  whom  I  buy  have  raised  their  margin  also ; 
they  were  obliged  to  do  so  to  make  both  ends  meet.  I  find  that  I 
cannot  secure  a  margin  of  twenty-five  per  cent — my  competitors 
cut  under  my  prices.  We  lose  money.  Then  we  form  a  secret  or 
private  combination  to  hold  up  the  Palo  Alto  prices.  Our  cus- 
tomers, largely  professors,  can  not  increase  their  stipends.  They 
find  that  a  salary  of  $4,000  in  1913  is  equivalent  to  one  of  $2,500 
to  $2,800  in  1897.  The  cost  of  living  has  risen.  The  purchasing 
power  of  money  has  fallen.  It  has  fallen  mainly  because  all 
consumption  has  been  over-taxed.  The  United  States  has  done 
her  part  in  this  ;  but  all  over  the  world  from  Osaka  to  Manchester, 
Buenos  Aires,  Palo  Alto  and  Irkutsk  the  same  story  is  told  with 
local  variations.  The  suffering  is  greater  on  those  nearest  the 
bread-line.  In  my  experience,  I  have  found  the  pressure  great- 
est in  Italy  and  in  Japan,  and  least  in  the  United  States,  although 
in  the  United  States  perhaps  most  fuss  is  made  about  it.  Steadily 
increasing  taxation  means  steadily  rising  cost  of  living.  The  more 
you  take  away  from  the  people  the  less  they  have  left,  and  the 
higher  the  price  they  will  set  on  what  is  left;  and  the  more  un- 
pleasant it  is  to  be  poor,  because  the  man  lowest  down  is  the  man 
who  can  not  set  his  own  prices. 

In  this  view,  the  primary  factor  in  the  rise  of  the  cost  of  liv- 
ing is  the  fall  in  the  purchasing  power  of  gold,  due  to  the  exces- 
sive and  growing  exactions  of  the  governments  of  the  world.  In 
other  words,  it  is  produced  by  the  steady  encroachments  of  the 
government  on  the  individual  the  world  over,  through  the  Indi- 
rect Tax  and  the  Deferred  Payment,  the  two  instruments  of  ty- 
ranny in  the  past,  now  used  by  democracy  for  self-oppression. 
Stated  differently,  the  common  man  has  too  many  mouths  to  feed, 
and  it  takes  too  much  of  his  money  to  feed  them.  The  cost  of 
enforced  idleness  and  malemployment,  the  special  result  of  mil- 
itarism, is  greater  even  than  the  cost  of  powder,  ships  and  guns. 
The  long  roll  of  those  fed  by  tax  increment  steadily  grows  with 
the  growth  of  the  taxes  that  support  them. 

There  is  certainly  a  dangerous  portent  in  a  prosperity  that 
rests  on  taxing  the  future,  and  in  the  steady  inflation  of  values, 


78  WHAT    SHALL    WE    SAY? 

The  debtor  world  is  growing  nominally  rich  at  the  expense  of 
the  creditor  world,  but  a  large  part  of  its  apparent  wealth  is  due 
to  the  inflation  of  prices  and  these  in  turn  to  administrative  waste, 
not  to  real  additions  in  value.  The  financial  management  of  the 
great  nations  has  overleaped  all  checks  and  balances.  With  the  fi- 
nancial management  of  even  the  best  of  the  "progressive  nations," 
no  private  corporation  could  escape  insolvency.  Leroy-Beaulieu 
has  lately  declared  that  the  world  has  rarely  before  been  so  badly 
governed.  Its  financial  affairs  are  "in  the  hands  of  incurable 
prodigals  and  improvident  experimenters." 

And  the  sign  and  evidence  of  this  is  in  the  steady  rise  in 
staple  values,  the  steady  increase  in  the  cost  of  living. 

Referring  to  the  migration  of  people  across  the  Rhine  at 
Basle,  from  high-taxed  Germany  toward  freer  and  more  pros- 
perous Switzerland,  the  so-called  "Pilgrims  of  Hunger,"  Pro- 
fessor Paolo  Goldini  says  that  "In  ten  years  we  shall  all  be  Pil- 
grims of  Hunger." 


XXIX. 

Fort  Graft 

What  shall  we  say  of  the  defense  of  Los  Angeles  ? 

This  fine  city  was  until  recently  twenty  miles  from  the  sea, 
and  being  unfortified  was  immune  from  attack  under  the  laws 
of  war. 

Reently,  however,  it  has  annexed  to  itself  the  seaport  of  San 
Pedro  and  the  lots  and  farms  between.  Near  San  Pedro  and 
dominating  the  harbor  of  Los  Angeles  is  the  fine  large  hill 
called  the  Palos  Verdes.  It  is  reported  that  this  hill  has  been 
bought  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States  at  a  cost  of, 
as  stated,  $249,000,  not  as  a  park,  for  which  nature  finely 
fitted  it,  but  as  a  coast  defense  to  be  made,  it  is  claimed,  into  a 
second  Gibraltar.  About  $328,000  is  now  asked  for  as  a  begin- 
ning, and  some  $2,500,000  is  expected  to  follow. 

By  this  means  Los  Angeles  will  lose  her  war  immunity, — 
which  matters  little,  as  there  is  not,  never  has  been,  and  appar- 
ently can  never  be,  an  enemy  on  the  outside  which  will  do  her 
any  harm.  For  the  same  reason,  this  fortification  will  certainly 
be  impregnable. 

A  leading  general  is  quoted  as  saying,  "Certainly  Los  Angeles 
Harbor  must  be  fortified,  but  you  folks  out  here  must  get  behind 
it  and  shove.  The  money  must  come  from  Congress  and  it  is 
your  duty  to  see  that  Congress  appreciates  your  need.  .  .  .  The 
situation  is  a  live  one,  for  wars  are  not  over  and  never  will  be  so 
long  as  men  are  men.  ...  It  is  not  a  simple  proposition  of  plac- 
ing soldiers.  The  problem  goes  way  back  of  that,  and  the  people 
of  the  Coast  must  play  the  game/' 

It  is  suggested  that  the  fortress  be  known  as  Fort  Graft,  in 
honor  of  its  founder. 


XXX. 

The  Navy  and  Statesmanship 

What  shall  we  say  of  our  navy  and  its  future,  its  purpose 
and  its  cost? 

The  American  navy  stands  near  the  parting  of  the  ways. 
Shall  it  continue  the  servant  of  a  democratic  people,  or  shall  it 
develop  into  a  special  caste,  unchecked  as  to  expense,  and  with 
no  responsibility  save  for  war? 

With  the  single  exception  of  the  British  navy,  the  American 
navy  is  now  the  most  costly  on  earth.  It  is  one  of  the  world's 
most  expensive  institutions.  It  costs  more  each  year  than  all  the 
colleges  of  engineering  and  agriculture  of  the  world,  with  all  the 
technical,  industrial,  and  trade  schools  of  whatever  sort — foun- 
dations of  the  industrial  prosperity  of  nations.  It  costs  more 
each  year  than  all  the  universities  of  the  world — the  foundations 
of  all  intellectual  leadership  and  of  social  progress.  Each  year 
it  reaches  a  higher  level  of  expense,  and  for  this  there  is  no  vis- 
ible reason,  either  internal  or  external,  save  the  local  rivalries  of 
Europe.  The  annual  cost  of  our  navy  has  risen  from  $56,000,000 
a  year  in  1901  to  $130,000,000  in  1912.  In  1881  these  expenses 
were  but  $13,000,000  per  year. 

The  main  duties  of  our  navy  in  the  future,  as  in  the  past,  are 
likely  to  be  away  from  the  sphere  of  foreign  war.  We  are  outside 
the  reckless  rivalries  of  European  Imperialism.  The  United 
States  has  known  but  three  foreign  wars.  All  three  of  these 
we  have  ourselves  brought  on,  and  in  no  case  has  history  justified 
our  action.  While  there  may  be  crises  ahead  in  our  foreign  re- 
lations, due  to  the  greed  of  exploiters,  or  to  the  venality  or  reck- 
lessness of  future  diplomatists,  no  such  danger  is  in  sight  today. 
No  existing  nation  could  do  us  any  injury  comparable  to  the 
injury  to  itself  arising  from  the  loss  of  our  friendship  and  our 
ti  ade. 

That  the  United  States  should  have  a  navy  goes  without  say- 
ing. No  one  wishes  to  destroy  the  navy;  we  would  only  that 


THE    NAVY    AND    STATESMANSHIP  8l 

it  should  be  our  navy, — our  contribution  towards  the  international 
police,  towards  good  order  and  safety  on  the  sea. 

We  have  been  proud  of  the  fact  that  our  officers  have  been 
American  citizens  first,  and  afterwards,  if  need  be,  brave  fighters ; 
that  they  have  never  constituted  a  warrior  caste,  nor  have  they 
itood  for  war  for  war's  sake.  We  have  rejoiced  that  their  train- 
ing was  that  of  first-class  engineers  and  skillful  navigators,  with 
the  culture  of  the  Academy  and  the  refinement  gained  by  wide 
experience  in  travel.  We  have  contrasted  this  with  the  warrior- 
caste  of  Europe,  scornful  of  the  common  man  and  his  interests, 
hand  in  glove  with  his  exploiters,  the  great  agent  of  imperial 
waste,  and  eager  always  for  war — since  war  is  their  sole  business 
and  in  war  is  glory  and  opportunity. 

If  the  navy  is  to  be  the  servant  of  the  people,  it  must  find 
the  reasons  for  its  acts  and  for  its  cost  in  the  needs  of  the  people. 
That  two  nations  of  Europe  are  running  a  neck-to-neck  Mara- 
thon race,  urged  on,  by  war-scares  and  by  class-interests,  towards 
.swift  ruin  by  war  or  slow  ruin  by  bankruptcy,  is  no  reason  why 
we  should  "speed  up"  to  join  them.  We  should  rather  use 
every  influence  towards  "slowing  the  pace"  and  softening  the 
friction.  The  insolvency  impending  is  not  that  of  lords,  bankers, 
traders  and  war  syndicates — those  who  thrive  on  the  nation's 
waste.  It  is  that  of  the  common  folk,  who  pay  the  taxes,  and  on 
whom  the  final  weight  of  empire  falls.  The  present  condition 
in  England  and  Germany  is  a  world-wide  calamity  in  itself. 
There  is  but  one  greater  in  sight :  that  is,  that  these  nations 
should  turn  their  armaments  on  each  other.  For  each  new 
dreadnaught  increases  the  danger  of  collision.  The  crash  would 
take  place  at  any  moment  were  it  not  for  the  restraints  of  bankers, 
of  trade,  of  labor,  and  of  civilization — which  is  another  word  for 
common  decency.  The  cohesive  force  of  intenationalism  is  very 
great,  but  it  is  strained  as  it  has  rarely  been  strained  before ;  and 
the  responsibility  for  the  strain  rests  with  the  war-caste  and  war- 
syndicates  of  England  and  Germany. 

The  size  of  a  navy  is  no  index  of  a  nation's  power.  A  bat- 
tleship is  not  an  agent  of  peace.  Like  a  revolver,  it  is  built  for 
killing.  To  say  that  "battleships  are  cheaper  than  battles"  in- 
vites the  epigram,  equally  true,  that  "revolvers  are  cheaper  than 
tombstones." 


82  WHAT    SHALL    WE    SAY? 

What  our  navy  should  be  is  no  question  of  naval  strategy. 
It  is  a  matter  for  the  decision  of  the  highest  statesmanship.  And 
«=ince  this  is  a  civilian  country,  made  up  of  civilian  people,  its 
statesmanship  must  be  civilian  statesmanship.  Inside  the  navy, 
expert  opinion  ought  to  rule,  probably  to  a  greater  extent  than 
now ;  but  the  relation  of  the  navy  to  other  nations  constitutes  a 
matter  mainly  outside  of  the  range  of  naval  judgment. 

By  the  present  struggle  for  or  against  two  dreadnaughts  a 
year,  or  one  or  four  dreadnaughts,  we  shall  get  nowhere.  To 
continue  or  to  add  to  our  present  unprecedented  expense  will  soon- 
er or  later  bring  violent  reaction.  Extravagance  and  reaction  are 
not  good  business. 

We  should  not  go  on  building  great  floating  fortresses,  be- 
cause we  have  begun  in  that  way,  nor  because  England  builds  or 
Germany  builds,  nor  because  we  may  fall  to  third  place  or  to 
tenth  place  in  the  rush  if  we  do  not  build.  We  should  do  simply 
what  is  needful,  wise,  and  just.  Whatever  is  more  than  that 
is  waste — and  waste  is  the  older  name  for  graft. 

The  way  to  a  solution  of  these  matters  lies,  as  I  believe,  in 
the  constitution  of  a  high  commission  of  civilian  statesmen  to 
which  the  whole  policy  of  army  and  navy  development  should 
be  referred.  This  commission  should  be  composed  for  the  most 
part  of  men  holding  no  political  or  military  office. 

Such  a  commission  might  outline  the  duties  and  needs  ot 
"national  defense,"  and  of  national  and  international  police  ser- 
vice, so  as  to  bring  good  citizens  into  agreement,  and  thus  to  lay 
the  foundations  for  wise  and  stable  policy. 

I  believe  that  we  should  build  no  more  warships  until  our 
people  can  have  such  a  statesman's  survey  of  the  situation.  This 
should  include  consideration  of  the  resources  and  purposes  of 
our  sister  nations ;  the  menace,  if  any,  involved  in  these  purposes ; 
and  the  methods  of  removal  of  possible  causes  of  friction  without 
the  suggestion  of  an  appeal  to  arms.  Wars  do  not  come  by  ac- 
cident, nor  are  they  dispensations  of  an  uncontrollable  Provi- 
dence. War  is  world  sickness.  It  is  brought  on  by  human  blun- 
dering, and  it  is  quite  as  amenable  to  sanitation  as  any  other 
i'orm  of  human  disorder. 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

305  De  Neve  Drive  -  Parking  Lot  17  •  Box  951388 

LOS  ANGELES,  CALIFORNIA  90095-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library  from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


